He's played under the best coach and surrounded by the best coached team every year.
under the best offensive system ever, due to it's ability to keep the same playbook, despite multiple OCs, and yet evolve each year to take advantage of personnel and matchups.
For me I can't help but remember how great Montana was and the comp he had to get through in the NFC Just to get to the SB. The Bears and their great D, the Skins with Gibbs and their Hogs, the Giants with LT, Parcells et al. Hell even the Rams in the West had some really good,tough teams.
What TB has done is impressive no question but I just don't think he's had to face tough competition year in year out. Shit, they went 3-1 to start the year without him.
This is 6 years in a row now that he's been at least to the AFCC game.
Brady's career is unparalleled.
I realize some of the people who watched Montana in his prime will still say it's him.. but Brady's consistence has been absolutely remarkable. And he's so seldom had elite skill players compared to a lot of other guys.
There was a time when Julian Edelman was a cornerback...
384 yards and 3 TD's tonight. No Gronk. Doesn't matter. 39 years old.
Which is why the two of them together have had this string of dominance.
But if this was all just some "system", the NFL, which is a copycat league, would have figured it out by now. They've been doing this for like 15 years.
7 Super Bowl appearances in 15 years is absolutely ridiculous in this salary cap era. The league is built in a way where this shouldn't happen.. and doesn't happen for any of the other 31 teams. But the Patriots defy that completely because of Belichick and Brady.
The fact that he is 39 and has done it with so many different
players . He is great a leader his skill set is second to
none .He is fiery and competitive he even declined and or
I think took pay cuts to help the cap . Sure he is cockey
but I don't think he is as bad a person that some make him
out to be . His Wife isn't too bad either .
All the guy does is win I don't know whats the argument
that he is not .
I like the guy to an extent I think the Plax prediction
response was pretty funny but when your confident enough
to back up your talk oh well it is what it is .
RE: I also believe Bill is the best HC of all time..
Which is why the two of them together have had this string of dominance.
But if this was all just some "system", the NFL, which is a copycat league, would have figured it out by now. They've been doing this for like 15 years.
7 Super Bowl appearances in 15 years is absolutely ridiculous in this salary cap era. The league is built in a way where this shouldn't happen.. and doesn't happen for any of the other 31 teams. But the Patriots defy that completely because of Belichick and Brady.
Belichick is the "system". You can't duplicate it. Also, the AFC has been less than impressive in this era. Always a 2 or 3 team race. Having an easy division year after year doesn't hurt either.
None of these guys count ? Before the league changed the rules, DB could knock the crap out of WRs downfield and beat the crisp out of QBs all day. Roughing the passer was almost nonexistent. How do you compare Johny Unitas to a Tom Brady?
I admit, I'd love to list some reasons to knock him down a peg...but this level of excellence for this long, against all different types of competition...hard to argue to counterpoint.
Here's how I look at the question - you have a team going to the Super Bowl and get to pick one QB from NFL history in his prime to be your starter, who do you pick?
I pick Brady. Some may disagree, certainly some other greats in the mix
... is that Brady has benefitted from a completely horrid division. Other than two years where Rex Ryan and Mark Sanchez somehow made it to the AFC Championship game (proving again how inept the AFC actually is), the Jets, Bills, and Dolphins have been complete jokes. That gives the Patriots 6 wins and a playoff home game to start off with.
None of these guys count ? Before the league changed the rules, DB could knock the crap out of WRs downfield and beat the crisp out of QBs all day. Roughing the passer was almost nonexistent. How do you compare Johny Unitas to a Tom Brady?
It's a valid point. I saw a poll of xNFL QBs recently asked who they thought the best QB ever was and most of them said Dan Marino, Johnny U was #2. Some of them said Brady could have played back then and been successful.
The rule changes are extremely dramatic, it's really not possible to compare today's QBs to ones that had to function when defense was allowed to play defense.
Cruzin is 100% correct. QB's before the late 70's had to play against DB's that could hack WR's all down the field...no 5 yard rule. Totally different game.
IMO Unitas is #1. Called his own plays, was lethal at the end of games, and could pass as well as anyone today. Played in the 50's, but could still go toe to toe with Namath in the early 70's (I watched him through most of the 60's into the 70's). If Johnny U. was playing with today's rules, it would be a joke...think Warner accuracy with Luck tools.
I would put him right there with Unitas. But since it is impossible to compare the two since they are over 40 years apart..... you have to give Brady the edge.
He's an Eli Manning away from getting SB ring number 7!
Brady is the poster boy of right place, right time
starting with the Bledsoe injury and the tuck rule. To his credit, he maximized his opportunity. Other candidates for "right place, right time": Big Ben, Russell Wilson, and now, Dak Prescott.
that Peyton is a better QB. Brady is great at what he does, but his team is always in the best position to succeed because Belichick is the greatest coach of all-time.
Tonight didn't show me anything new or special about Brady. He had great protection, his guys were open, they all made plays, and his defense shut down the Steelers so the team was always in control.
Since Brady became the starter, the Patriots are 14-6 in games with backup QBs. That's slightly better than going 11-5 over the course of a season. For comparison, Eli and the Giants have done that only 3 times over the 12 full years of his career. Brees has done that 5 times in 15 years. Marino? 4 times in 13 seasons. Rodgers? 4 of 8.
Teams win games and championships. Brady is the perfect QB for the Patriots, but I think much of the credit goes to Belichick and the way his team is prepared ever week. They've shown year after year with how willing they are to part with stars that they are bigger than any one player.
The guy has made it happen with little at wide receiver for most of his career. The one time he got a real threat on the outside, he broke records. BB is a genius? Name one HOF coach in the modern era that earned his reputation without a great quarterback at the helm. It goes both ways.
For me, I've come to this conclusion about Brady versus others:
Most consistently great QB over the longest period of time ever.
Now as far as pure elite best ever ability, I find it hard to put him above Joe Montana and a few other QBs. Montana had far superior footwork and mobility, and ability to extend plays. People like to mention if Brady had mobility he'd be insane, and forget that Montana had mobility that was only eclipsed by a handful of QBs. 59 yards rushing in a single Super Bowl is #3 all time by Kap & McNair.
The '80s was very rough on QBs. Brady would not have liked the treatment they got back then if he complains about the minor hits he gets now. There's no way in hell a 39 year old man is playing QB at a high level back in the day, let alone starting.
Also, the whole Montana played with Rice & Taylor argument gets subsided a lot when you look at his career '81-'84 and '93-'94 in KC.
But after it's all said and done, being available as a pro bowl QB up to age 40 is remarkable. It's like the Jerry Rice definition of greatness when he recorded two 1000 yard seasons past age 40.
If Brady gets a 5th ring, you just might have to give it to him.
how an argument could be made against him being the best of all time.
I always found the well he's not undefeated in Super Bowls like Montana is.
So Montana lost more before getting to the actual Super Bowl than Brady has and we're supposed to use that against Brady?
4-2 in Super Bowls is better than 4-0. Yet people act like 4-0 is better than 4-2
Well it was tougher to get to the SB for an old school NFC QB, while it was harder to win it outright for modern QBs of either conference. The 1984 season says it all: win grind it out games against Giants & Bears then slays the Marino led Dolphins after his historic season.
I do think that 49er fans themselves would be the first to question Montana's greatness if he lost twice to a team in the Super Bowl that wasn't a better all around team. Cincinnati was essentially the best AFC opponent to the Niners and kept it tight in both games, and didn't win either.
When the Giants beat the Niners in '85, '86, '90, they were on the same level or better. Every year had a more or less predestined champion.
It's one of those things that can be argued either way. Brady had better QB competition in his conference, but overall team and HC, he had a nice edge.
When the Ravens and Steelers brought a complete package, they created problems for Brady.
is 30 years from now, nobody but football historians will be talking about Montana & Brady probably.
The names will be known just like Unitas, Tarkenton, Starr, Staubach, etc. are for most real football fans, but how many of us can compare those guys the way we can compare the modern day guys?
You have the very same issue for the most part comparing Formula One racers from the '50s to modern day, and that's just ONE person, LOL.
7 sb's in 17 years.
If he was a Giant, we would build a monument to him.
What he has done from a skinny 6th Rd pick to now is amazing.
I have nothing but respect for him.
This has been an amazing run by that franchise.
I do love that the Giants are the only team to get the best of them during this run.
how an argument could be made against him being the best of all time.
I always found the well he's not undefeated in Super Bowls like Montana is.
So Montana lost more before getting to the actual Super Bowl than Brady has and we're supposed to use that against Brady?
4-2 in Super Bowls is better than 4-0. Yet people act like 4-0 is better than 4-2
Well it was tougher to get to the SB for an old school NFC QB, while it was harder to win it outright for modern QBs of either conference. The 1984 season says it all: win grind it out games against Giants & Bears then slays the Marino led Dolphins after his historic season.
I do think that 49er fans themselves would be the first to question Montana's greatness if he lost twice to a team in the Super Bowl that wasn't a better all around team. Cincinnati was essentially the best AFC opponent to the Niners and kept it tight in both games, and didn't win either.
When the Giants beat the Niners in '85, '86, '90, they were on the same level or better. Every year had a more or less predestined champion.
It's one of those things that can be argued either way. Brady had better QB competition in his conference, but overall team and HC, he had a nice edge.
When the Ravens and Steelers brought a complete package, they created problems for Brady.
Brady for most of his career had one of the 3-4 best QB's of all time in his conference, so spare me how much harder it was to get to the Super Bowl in the 80's. It wasn't. It's a lot harder to keep a team together and be a dynasty now than it was in the 80's
Around him. And maybe I be if it happens without Bill B. Who again in the SB era and maybe ever is the best coach ever
He traded away his two best players on D and they abused Pitt. A team who ran over our D. One in the middle of the year. He's so far above every other coach right now it's not even close. Brady at 39 is playing at a level higher than everyone except a few guys.
Cruzin is 100% correct. QB's before the late 70's had to play against DB's that could hack WR's all down the field...no 5 yard rule. Totally different game.
IMO Unitas is #1. Called his own plays, was lethal at the end of games, and could pass as well as anyone today. Played in the 50's, but could still go toe to toe with Namath in the early 70's (I watched him through most of the 60's into the 70's). If Johnny U. was playing with today's rules, it would be a joke...think Warner accuracy with Luck tools.
I wish I had seen Unitas playing to have a better feel for this question. The problem is that these debates are beatin' to death by the talking heads and they tend to live in the now; which doesn't offer up a good comp. I have always leaned towards Montana over Brady, but while I wanted to give Unitas the nod it's hard if you've never seen him play.
To the debate of 4-0 vs. 4-2 and 80's play vs. 2000's, I'd definitely lean on the undefeated SB record as more advantageous and I do think it is easier to play QB nowadays than the 80's. But I have given into to the notion of Brady being the best of my generation (watching football since '76).
I don't know. But if we were choosing up sides and I got him
But its debatable. The fact that he is still so good at age 39 says a lot about him. I would add that it is difficult to compare guys across different eras. How does Marino fare in the pass friendly NFL? I never saw Unitas play but he had some crazy stats and was a big winner during another era.
He's playing as well as he ever has at 40, unreal. The thing that's always amazed me about Brady is how good he is with UDFA, undersized WR's. Yes I get that he's had Moss, Branch and Gronk, but he's doesn't miss beat with Welker, Edelman and now Hogan. And people wonder how the Pats can be this dominate while remaining in great cap shape, that's how.
Our emphasis on being "the best" goes too far. Posting great stats and besting comparisons aren't anyone's goal: winning is. Tom Brady win alot. Deservedly so. He gets all my respect, and I enjoy watching him play at his best. The rest doesn't matter
Everybody in the NFL should kiss Eli & TC's asses forever
since Brady took over in New England, the Patriots win with Brady and they win without him. Sure, they dominate with Brady, but it just shows how incredible of a situation he is in.
Patriots back-ups have the same winning percentage as Peyton and Montana, and a better winning percentage than Elway, Marino, Unitas, Favre, and Rodgers.
A QB is the most important position in the sport and maybe in any sport. But he is only on the field for ~40% of the game and during that 40%, he still requires the cohesive functionality of 10 other players.
QBs are influential, but teams win games and teams win championships.
I think he's better than Montana, as he's one SB's with far less talent than Montana's 49ers had. I think Rodgers is more talented, but games like yesterday don't help his cause for GOAT.
for reasons pointed out - eras, teams - too many variables to be able to effectively rule one great player as better than another.
That said, if I had to pick a best, I don't see how I could skip over Brady. The amount of success he's had is incredible. Just makes those two SBs all that much more satisfying.
the guy threw 50 TD's in a season, which was the most ever until Manning took it back.
The guy's playoff record: 24 - 9, is equivalent to two full regular seasons, but in the playoffs. That's insane. He's thrown for 8600 yards and 61 TD's in those games.
He's played under the best coach and surrounded by the best coached team every year.
So did Montana.
I've always had Montana first, but after this year I am prepared to let Brady move ahead. He is incredible.
Me too, and I feel like most of the friends I have my age that have been watching since childhood did too. And I may be wrong, but I don't remember Montana ever getting dinged for having Walsh.
Nice reminder that two of the greatest teams of all time, the 1990 49ers and 2007 Patriots were thwarted by our Giants.
Look, there are a lot of all time greats. There's got to be something that separates them somewhere, and that's where Championships come in to play. That's what did it for Montana, and that's what now does it for Brady, to me.
You can certainly put others in the conversation, but I don't see how you can make a clear case for anyone being better than him looking at the stats and the accomplishments.
He has made it impossible to not consider him in the top 3-5
But, in the "pick a QB in his prime" to start a franchise, I wouldn't pick him unless I could select Belichick as coach. That's the only modifier to best ever that seems not totally inappropriate.
Peyton getting to the Super Bowl with four different head coaches, two different franchises and completely different rosters is more impressive and it gives me more confidence in individual greatness and influence than consistent domination with the same franchise and head coach whom I consider the best of all-time.
Peyton getting to the Super Bowl with four different head coaches, two different franchises and completely different rosters is more impressive and it gives me more confidence in individual greatness and influence than consistent domination with the same franchise and head coach whom I consider the best of all-time.
I think the argument could be made that Peyton did little more than ride the wave to his last Superbowl. I don't know if what he did during that Denver run was "impressive".
is also easily discounted because other teams had much stronger defenses and the rules were completely different as well.
That's what makes these cross-era comparisons so useless. If you could drop ship prime Montana to today's NFL, I'm pretty sure he'd put up much more ridiculous numbers than what he cranked out back then.
As far as quarterbacks that I watched the entire duration of their career, up until recently I would've even said Peyton was better. Peyton changed the game, and did it with two different teams under several head coaches, none of which were the caliber of Belichick. However, making 7 Super Bowls and winning 4/5 of them is something that cannot be discounted. Not to mention that Brady has never had long periods of time with guys like Harrison or Wayne to throw to. For me, it's a toss up between Peyton and Brady, but the edge has to go to Brady at this point, especially if he wins and is 5-2 in Super Bowls vs. 2-2 for Peyton (when one of those Super Bowls he was carried by the Denver defense).
I feel like both have surpassed everyone else including Montana.
Im not sure how to distinguish between the two when you take the totality of their careers and accomplishments into account as well as the eyeball test on the field and at varying points in their career.
Brady has had the advantage of one franchise with one head coach and basically one system his entire career. Football is all about the HC/QB combo and Belichick is the best of all time.
Mannng has never had that. He had so many HCs and went to 4 Super Bowls with 4 different coaches and is the first ever to win with 2 different franchises. He even reversed his fortunes against Brady and NE later in his career.
Its just so close, to me. Between the 2. I think they are far and away above everyone.
Peyton rode that defense because he was broken down, further showing how much the sport is a team game. But when he was healthy and went to Denver in a completely new situation, he smashed records.
Peyton rode that defense because he was broken down, further showing how much the sport is a team game. But when he was healthy and went to Denver in a completely new situation, he smashed records.
I'm just saying that that really is a stat padding Superbowl for him.
2-2 in Championship games does look considerably better than the 1-2 that he would have retired with without it. Peyton for a loooooooong time was labeled a big game choker. Tom Brady has NEVER had that label.
Peyton Manning played pretty bad in the Superbowl he actually won. Tom Brady got his team the lead with under 2 minutes in both Superbowls he lost. As somebody else said, Tom Brady is two Eli Manning miracles away from having 6 rings right now, working on 7. As great as Manning was, he just doesn't have that and something needs to separate guys.
Especially his first title. That was a defense, run game team. He didn't even finish the AFC Championship game vs Pitt, Bledsoe did. He was out early in the 2Q of a 7-3 game. In all honesty, they didn't even beat the Raiders in the divisional game, the Tuck Rule was the biggest gift ever. He was a game manager that season. He threw 1 Touchdown in that entire postseason. His passer rating was 77.
Im not trying to take anything away from him. I just find it amusing that people love to deconstruct Peyton Manning and find all sorts of ways to take away from his accomplishments but never Tom Brady.
I find it equally fascinating that people do the same to Eli Manning but never Ben Roethlisberger.
Peyton rode that defense because he was broken down, further showing how much the sport is a team game. But when he was healthy and went to Denver in a completely new situation, he smashed records.
I'm just saying that that really is a stat padding Superbowl for him.
2-2 in Championship games does look considerably better than the 1-2 that he would have retired with without it. Peyton for a loooooooong time was labeled a big game choker. Tom Brady has NEVER had that label.
Peyton Manning played pretty bad in the Superbowl he actually won. Tom Brady got his team the lead with under 2 minutes in both Superbowls he lost. As somebody else said, Tom Brady is two Eli Manning miracles away from having 6 rings right now, working on 7. As great as Manning was, he just doesn't have that and something needs to separate guys.
Peyton rode that defense because he was broken down, further showing how much the sport is a team game. But when he was healthy and went to Denver in a completely new situation, he smashed records.
I'm just saying that that really is a stat padding Superbowl for him.
2-2 in Championship games does look considerably better than the 1-2 that he would have retired with without it. Peyton for a loooooooong time was labeled a big game choker. Tom Brady has NEVER had that label.
Peyton Manning played pretty bad in the Superbowl he actually won. Tom Brady got his team the lead with under 2 minutes in both Superbowls he lost. As somebody else said, Tom Brady is two Eli Manning miracles away from having 6 rings right now, working on 7. As great as Manning was, he just doesn't have that and something needs to separate guys.
Big game choker analysis on Peyton/Mr. Clutch is really such an interesting discussion. Remember the AFC Championship game with the Big Ben tackle to save the game? Remember what followed that tackle? Peyton driving his team into FG range in the clutch and his idiot kicker missing. Thus continued his "choke" legacy while Viniatieri drilled the same kicks for Brady. Completely random and unrelated to relative skill set of the two QBs. And how about the game for Brady against the Chargers where he literally threw the game losing interception only to have them inexplicably fumble it back to the Pats? These random moments are just a snipper of why looking just at stats or big game results is such an imperfect measure.
There is no way I could concede the point because Belichick still wins without him.
To some degree (and this is I think the debate point) you have to give the HC and system credit for his success. How much of the credit for the Patriots dominance do you give to Belichick and his overall system. I'm guessing Brady on the Giants has similar stats/win % to Eli and probably loses much more time to injury (hell he might even be retired already).
Peyton rode that defense because he was broken down, further showing how much the sport is a team game. But when he was healthy and went to Denver in a completely new situation, he smashed records.
I'm just saying that that really is a stat padding Superbowl for him.
2-2 in Championship games does look considerably better than the 1-2 that he would have retired with without it. Peyton for a loooooooong time was labeled a big game choker. Tom Brady has NEVER had that label.
Peyton Manning played pretty bad in the Superbowl he actually won. Tom Brady got his team the lead with under 2 minutes in both Superbowls he lost. As somebody else said, Tom Brady is two Eli Manning miracles away from having 6 rings right now, working on 7. As great as Manning was, he just doesn't have that and something needs to separate guys.
Big game choker analysis on Peyton/Mr. Clutch is really such an interesting discussion. Remember the AFC Championship game with the Big Ben tackle to save the game? Remember what followed that tackle? Peyton driving his team into FG range in the clutch and his idiot kicker missing. Thus continued his "choke" legacy while Viniatieri drilled the same kicks for Brady. Completely random and unrelated to relative skill set of the two QBs. And how about the game for Brady against the Chargers where he literally threw the game losing interception only to have them inexplicably fumble it back to the Pats? These random moments are just a snipper of why looking just at stats or big game results is such an imperfect measure.
Manning was one and done 9 times in the playoffs in his career.
Although he clearly benefited from playing under the GOAT for head coaches, his remarkable level of play well into his late 30s, his leadership, his fitness/diet regimen, his ability to make marginal players look like all stars, accuracy, toughness, clutch play, arm strength and ability to diagnose what the defense is doing and wisely getting the ball into the right hands makes him the best of all time.
But if the Pats win, and Brady is MVP, or in MVP consideration, then he finally wins the argument.
He was about as good as Big Ben was when he won his first SB, so throw that one out in comparison to Montana, and they should have lost to Seattle, so, that Lombardi was a gift, even though he played great, we all know SB titles weigh heavily in this conversation. He would have 3 at this point to Montana's 2.
He wins, and plays well, he stands alone.
Does anyone honestly doubt that Tom Brady is a better QB now then he was when they won 3 out of 4 SBS?
The reason he never had the same label as Peyton did is that. Yet, does anyone doubt that if Tom Brady was the Colts QB from 2001 to 2004 that they wouldn't have won SBs let alone 3 of 4?
If you could somehow flip Brady's career, imagine what he would have been labeled?
The last 10 playoffs, Brady has went to 3 SBs and won just 1. He lost at 18-0. During that time he has been defeated in 3 AFC title games by Peyton Manning, who won 2 SBs. Including one game where he had a 21-3 lead and threw an interception to end it in the final minute.
His lone SB win was a game that was was really lost. It was a fluke play made by his defense and better clock management and play calling would have resulted in a third loss. I mean the game was out of his hands. It was lost and he had no say in the final outcome.
During this stretch they had lost 4 AFC title games and were knocked out 3 times at home.
He was 0-5 vs Mannings and they were all in the title games and SBs.
The reputation is influenced by previous history, which he obviously earned.
Yet, is there any doubt that Tom Brady has been a better QB for all of the above than he was during his 3 of 4 SB wins?
You can't just evaluate on things like SB wins. Its obviously a big and important factor but not the only one.
I don't say this to try and take away from Tom Brady's success over the last 10 years. He has been incredible and tied for the best ever. Its just to take away from simple-minded arguments that reduce complexity to one factor.
As noted the four coaches, even Dungee is a borderline great coach to me. Certainly his replacement was useless in Manning's scone SB where Sean Peyton outcoached him. As for titles, Manning lost some heartbreaking championship games including the loss in Denver to Balt on the horrific D play with time expiring. Perhaps the worst playoff loss I have even seen, except for the Giants blundered field goal against SF.
defenses always seem to step up no matter who is on the roster, who is hurt, who was recently released, etc. That is a function of Belichick's mastery of team building and team management. It's the same thing on offense. Brady is excellent, no doubt about it. I just credit a LOT of his success to team success, reflective of having Belichick running the show.
Here's an interesting bit of trivia. Rodgers has now been eliminated from the playoffs 3 times where his opponent scored at least 44 points. You know how many times in Brady's entire regular season and playoff career that his opponent scored at least 44 points? ZERO.
Over Rodgers' 7 playoff losses, his opponent scored an average of 36.3 points per game. In Brady's ENTIRE regular season and postseason career, his opponent scored 36 or more points only 7 total times.
Are these numbers cherry-picked? Sure. But it still shows how QB "success" is out of any QB's control.
RE: Let's deconstruct Brady they way they do Peyton
Does anyone honestly doubt that Tom Brady is a better QB now then he was when they won 3 out of 4 SBS?
The reason he never had the same label as Peyton did is that. Yet, does anyone doubt that if Tom Brady was the Colts QB from 2001 to 2004 that they wouldn't have won SBs let alone 3 of 4?
If you could somehow flip Brady's career, imagine what he would have been labeled?
The last 10 playoffs, Brady has went to 3 SBs and won just 1. He lost at 18-0. During that time he has been defeated in 3 AFC title games by Peyton Manning, who won 2 SBs. Including one game where he had a 21-3 lead and threw an interception to end it in the final minute.
His lone SB win was a game that was was really lost. It was a fluke play made by his defense and better clock management and play calling would have resulted in a third loss. I mean the game was out of his hands. It was lost and he had no say in the final outcome.
During this stretch they had lost 4 AFC title games and were knocked out 3 times at home.
He was 0-5 vs Mannings and they were all in the title games and SBs.
The reputation is influenced by previous history, which he obviously earned.
Yet, is there any doubt that Tom Brady has been a better QB for all of the above than he was during his 3 of 4 SB wins?
You can't just evaluate on things like SB wins. Its obviously a big and important factor but not the only one.
I don't say this to try and take away from Tom Brady's success over the last 10 years. He has been incredible and tied for the best ever. Its just to take away from simple-minded arguments that reduce complexity to one factor.
It's not a simple minded argument, it's a tiebreaker.
Something has to separate the cream of the crop.
Brady and Peyton have all the records and success. If you're picking a definitive number 1, something has to be the tiebreaker.
In my opinion, playoff success and Championships is that tiebreaker.
I don't believe that to be simple minded.
They're both in the Top 5 All Time in Passing Yards
They're both in the Top 5 All Time in TD's (both have had the NFL record for most TD's in a season)
They're both in the Top 5 All Time in Completion Percentage
Regular Season Records:
Brady: 183 - 52
Manning: 186 - 79
If you're not going to look at playoff records and Championships, how the hell are you going to separate them?
Watch him clip the Falcons wings and show a lacrosse player at WR how to get open. Brady is a great student, and egoless IMO, but it's the coach who maximizes the potential.
I posted this in another thread but it applies here:
Can some team from the AFC East RISE UP JUST FUCKING ONCE and win that division? The Jets, Bills and Dolphins should be ashamed of themselves. I would be embarrassed if I rooted for any of them. Win a fucking division just once in a decade for fucks sake. ONE time! ONCE!!!!!!
Fuck Brady and his perfect QB RATING and life. Fuck the Pats. Fuck the owner. Fuck those spoiled fair weather fans that, outside of a small percentage wouldn't know loyalty from their asses.
One division title in a year where Brady was hurt for the year????? ONE over 16 years???? Wait, TWO...sorry...
That division is an abomination. Every other team should be fucking relegated. Shame on them all. Disgrace. The Pats are beyond great but man, do they have help. They play in a twinkie of a division.
Does anyone honestly doubt that Tom Brady is a better QB now then he was when they won 3 out of 4 SBS?
The reason he never had the same label as Peyton did is that. Yet, does anyone doubt that if Tom Brady was the Colts QB from 2001 to 2004 that they wouldn't have won SBs let alone 3 of 4?
If you could somehow flip Brady's career, imagine what he would have been labeled?
The last 10 playoffs, Brady has went to 3 SBs and won just 1. He lost at 18-0. During that time he has been defeated in 3 AFC title games by Peyton Manning, who won 2 SBs. Including one game where he had a 21-3 lead and threw an interception to end it in the final minute.
His lone SB win was a game that was was really lost. It was a fluke play made by his defense and better clock management and play calling would have resulted in a third loss. I mean the game was out of his hands. It was lost and he had no say in the final outcome.
During this stretch they had lost 4 AFC title games and were knocked out 3 times at home.
He was 0-5 vs Mannings and they were all in the title games and SBs.
The reputation is influenced by previous history, which he obviously earned.
Yet, is there any doubt that Tom Brady has been a better QB for all of the above than he was during his 3 of 4 SB wins?
You can't just evaluate on things like SB wins. Its obviously a big and important factor but not the only one.
I don't say this to try and take away from Tom Brady's success over the last 10 years. He has been incredible and tied for the best ever. Its just to take away from simple-minded arguments that reduce complexity to one factor.
It's not a simple minded argument, it's a tiebreaker.
Something has to separate the cream of the crop.
Brady and Peyton have all the records and success. If you're picking a definitive number 1, something has to be the tiebreaker.
In my opinion, playoff success and Championships is that tiebreaker.
I don't believe that to be simple minded.
They're both in the Top 5 All Time in Passing Yards
They're both in the Top 5 All Time in TD's (both have had the NFL record for most TD's in a season)
They're both in the Top 5 All Time in Completion Percentage
Regular Season Records:
Brady: 183 - 52
Manning: 186 - 79
If you're not going to look at playoff records and Championships, how the hell are you going to separate them?
In those categories you list- Peyton Manning has the clear edge. He is the all time leader in those categories. He has 10000 more pass yards, he has almost 100 more TDs. He has the single season TD record. He has more MVPs, etc.
Of none of these stats and these kind of individual stats does Tom Brady hold an advantage over Peyton Manning.
You expanded to the top 5 all-time, to include Brady. Because Peyton isnt top 5 in any of them. He is the all time leader in them.
Its not a tiebreaker.
Your view on the postseason is what gets you to a tie and then you give the edge to Brady based on that factor lone, which you judge to be more significant
Does anyone honestly doubt that Tom Brady is a better QB now then he was when they won 3 out of 4 SBS?
The reason he never had the same label as Peyton did is that. Yet, does anyone doubt that if Tom Brady was the Colts QB from 2001 to 2004 that they wouldn't have won SBs let alone 3 of 4?
If you could somehow flip Brady's career, imagine what he would have been labeled?
The last 10 playoffs, Brady has went to 3 SBs and won just 1. He lost at 18-0. During that time he has been defeated in 3 AFC title games by Peyton Manning, who won 2 SBs. Including one game where he had a 21-3 lead and threw an interception to end it in the final minute.
His lone SB win was a game that was was really lost. It was a fluke play made by his defense and better clock management and play calling would have resulted in a third loss. I mean the game was out of his hands. It was lost and he had no say in the final outcome.
During this stretch they had lost 4 AFC title games and were knocked out 3 times at home.
He was 0-5 vs Mannings and they were all in the title games and SBs.
The reputation is influenced by previous history, which he obviously earned.
Yet, is there any doubt that Tom Brady has been a better QB for all of the above than he was during his 3 of 4 SB wins?
You can't just evaluate on things like SB wins. Its obviously a big and important factor but not the only one.
I don't say this to try and take away from Tom Brady's success over the last 10 years. He has been incredible and tied for the best ever. Its just to take away from simple-minded arguments that reduce complexity to one factor.
It's not a simple minded argument, it's a tiebreaker.
Something has to separate the cream of the crop.
Brady and Peyton have all the records and success. If you're picking a definitive number 1, something has to be the tiebreaker.
In my opinion, playoff success and Championships is that tiebreaker.
I don't believe that to be simple minded.
They're both in the Top 5 All Time in Passing Yards
They're both in the Top 5 All Time in TD's (both have had the NFL record for most TD's in a season)
They're both in the Top 5 All Time in Completion Percentage
Regular Season Records:
Brady: 183 - 52
Manning: 186 - 79
If you're not going to look at playoff records and Championships, how the hell are you going to separate them?
and for me, the postseason is a tiebreaker, what separates them. It looks to be similar for a lot of people, as well.
You can't just say "saying Brady has won more Superbowls and playoff games is simple minded". That would be like me saying your argument there about the being the all time leader is simple minded (it's not).
But in a subjective debate such as "best ever", it just depends what the individual making the argument holds in higher regard.
He may play 3-5 more years and make 2 more SB's and throw for 4000 yards each of those seasons
Neither he nor Hoodie show any signs of slowing down or easing up. That team looks like it is on the ascent...especially on defense.
If Brady makes 1 more SB after this and wins this one or that one....then arguing he is not the GOAT becomes really difficult
That to me is the hard part to comprehend. He is not done yet as an elite QB leading an elite team and an elite organization.
I think arguing against him as the GOAT in more five years is going to be a matter of not liking something he said or jealousy or just to be contrarian.
Im sorry but they will get to the SB again after this. Maybe twice. You have to be great ( and surrounded by great) to put yourself in such a position
that Brady's teams have won more. The argument against is how much that also reflects on Belichick and the entire organization. vis a vis how much credit we just give to Brady.
Bradshaw won 4 Super Bowls. I have yet to see anyone mention him on here as one of the three best ever.
They have not had an equal regular season career. By every measure you could come up with, Manning has been more successful in the regular season.
Brady has had tremendous regular season success as well, just not as much as Manning.
You are trying to act as if the world are equal in that regard. They are not. This is why Manning has more MVPs, more Pro Bowls, holds every major all time QB record.
Brady, however, has had more postseason success than Manning.
Manning has also had tremendous postseason success but not as much as Brady.
Now, why I call t simpleminded is that the bulk of Brady's postseason success and the yard stick for why you and others consider him better is based on the 3 to 4 stretch in the early part of his career.
The subsequent 10 year stretch, when Brady was actually a better QB, has seen basically an even Brady and Manning. Brady would have to win this upcoming game to match Peyton in the last 10 years. Although, he would still be 0-3 against him in the playoffs.
Brady would be viewed quite differently if we had only judged on his last 10 years. His reputation in the early part of his career was as the unflappable QB who could lead the late game rally and deliver the win. He has actually been unable to do that in the last 10 years and has been the victim of that - especially from the Manning Brothers. He has actually thrown many a back breaking INT during this period like vs Denver in 2005 or the Colts in the AFC title game and some others.
I'm not trying to discredit what Brady did in the first 4 years. I just don't find it a complex argument to say this period is what makes him better than Manning and especially when I think it's indisputable that he is better now then he was yet found less success. Its a team game and a team sport. The QB an unusually large share of the outcome as does HC but its not the only factor. I think a QB has to win a SB at some point (which is why I rule out Marino) and they both have but I dont think winning more is the final measure.
I honestly cant say who is better. They are both unbelievable and I think equally great. I think both superior to everyone else.
that Brady's teams have won more. The argument against is how much that also reflects on Belichick and the entire organization. vis a vis how much credit we just give to Brady.
Bradshaw won 4 Super Bowls. I have yet to see anyone mention him on here as one of the three best ever.
Bradshaw doesn't have the stats, the records, or the League MVP's to be considered.
Brady is the total package. Peyton as well. Montana is there, too, but can't compare eras, but he was a guy that had the stats, the records, the MVP's, and the Championships. Those three guys are the ones that had it all.
They have not had an equal regular season career. By every measure you could come up with, Manning has been more successful in the regular season.
Brady has had tremendous regular season success as well, just not as much as Manning.
You are trying to act as if the world are equal in that regard. They are not. This is why Manning has more MVPs, more Pro Bowls, holds every major all time QB record.
Brady, however, has had more postseason success than Manning.
Manning has also had tremendous postseason success but not as much as Brady.
Now, why I call t simpleminded is that the bulk of Brady's postseason success and the yard stick for why you and others consider him better is based on the 3 to 4 stretch in the early part of his career.
The subsequent 10 year stretch, when Brady was actually a better QB, has seen basically an even Brady and Manning. Brady would have to win this upcoming game to match Peyton in the last 10 years. Although, he would still be 0-3 against him in the playoffs.
Brady would be viewed quite differently if we had only judged on his last 10 years. His reputation in the early part of his career was as the unflappable QB who could lead the late game rally and deliver the win. He has actually been unable to do that in the last 10 years and has been the victim of that - especially from the Manning Brothers. He has actually thrown many a back breaking INT during this period like vs Denver in 2005 or the Colts in the AFC title game and some others.
I'm not trying to discredit what Brady did in the first 4 years. I just don't find it a complex argument to say this period is what makes him better than Manning and especially when I think it's indisputable that he is better now then he was yet found less success. Its a team game and a team sport. The QB an unusually large share of the outcome as does HC but its not the only factor. I think a QB has to win a SB at some point (which is why I rule out Marino) and they both have but I dont think winning more is the final measure.
I honestly cant say who is better. They are both unbelievable and I think equally great. I think both superior to everyone else.
I think you're diminishing Tom Brady's early Superbowl performances as if he was more riding the coattails than actually being part of the reason they were winning.
2001: 16/27 59%, 145 yards, 1 TD, 0 INT's (this one I'll give you)
2003: 37/50 66.7%, 354 yards, 3 TD's, 1 INT (this was the shootout against Carolina. It also ranks as the 6th best statistical performance in the Superbowl era by a QB).
2004: 23/33 69.7%, 236 yards, 2 TD's, 0 INT's.
The past ten years, Brady and Manning will have played in the same amount of Superbowls, and Brady has a chance to win the same amount as Manning in that 10 year stretch this year.
So by your own admission, they've been neck and neck for the past 10 years.
Why should Brady's early career success, and Manning's lack of it, count against Brady in any way? That's what I don't get.
starting with the Bledsoe injury and the tuck rule. To his credit, he maximized his opportunity. Other candidates for "right place, right time": Big Ben, Russell Wilson, and now, Dak Prescott.
By that odd definition, every NFL player is a case of right place, right time.
Ive said he is tied as the greatest all-time QB ever and Im holding something against him??
I agree that Brady has had the better postseason career than manning, although I dont think its as great a disparity as some believe, partly because Brady's missteps are overlooked due to his early success.
I think Brady has had an advantage in HC and stability of team/organization that is in part attributable to his success
I think if some as the situations/context had changed Manning could have equaled the success that Brady had and vice versa as I believe they both have proved.
I think Brady showed he can put up the type of numbers manning did when he was given that type of talent like Moss and system
I think Brady also showed that he wasnt this perfect/flawless magical postseason QB when he didnt have that dynasty team and was vulnerable to big letdowns, losses and even clutch failures like Peyton has had in the playoffs
Peyton has showed he can have huge playoff games (he had a few perfect QB rating games) and performances and even have magical comeback type moments like he did in AFC title game vs NE in 06 and be a game manager type QB and win as well.
I think Peyton should get some credit for going to a SB with 4 different HCs and being only person to win with 2 teams.
I would consider Peyton's advantage in regular season to be equal to Brady's advantage in the playoffs.
I think if you changed situations, teams, scenarios, they would have had interchangeable results.
Brady has a chance to equal Peyton over the last 10 years but he may not.
1-3 is a big difference from 2-2. Especially in the manner of the one win.
Would you consider Brady to be a worse QB if he doesn't win this game?
Personally, I have made my judgement. Brady and Manning are equals, no matter the result in 2 weeks. I think they have proven all they have needed to prove.
They have not had an equal regular season career. By every measure you could come up with, Manning has been more successful in the regular season.
Brady has had tremendous regular season success as well, just not as much as Manning.
You are trying to act as if the world are equal in that regard. They are not. This is why Manning has more MVPs, more Pro Bowls, holds every major all time QB record.
Brady, however, has had more postseason success than Manning.
Manning has also had tremendous postseason success but not as much as Brady.
Now, why I call t simpleminded is that the bulk of Brady's postseason success and the yard stick for why you and others consider him better is based on the 3 to 4 stretch in the early part of his career.
The subsequent 10 year stretch, when Brady was actually a better QB, has seen basically an even Brady and Manning. Brady would have to win this upcoming game to match Peyton in the last 10 years. Although, he would still be 0-3 against him in the playoffs.
Brady would be viewed quite differently if we had only judged on his last 10 years. His reputation in the early part of his career was as the unflappable QB who could lead the late game rally and deliver the win. He has actually been unable to do that in the last 10 years and has been the victim of that - especially from the Manning Brothers. He has actually thrown many a back breaking INT during this period like vs Denver in 2005 or the Colts in the AFC title game and some others.
I'm not trying to discredit what Brady did in the first 4 years. I just don't find it a complex argument to say this period is what makes him better than Manning and especially when I think it's indisputable that he is better now then he was yet found less success. Its a team game and a team sport. The QB an unusually large share of the outcome as does HC but its not the only factor. I think a QB has to win a SB at some point (which is why I rule out Marino) and they both have but I dont think winning more is the final measure.
I honestly cant say who is better. They are both unbelievable and I think equally great. I think both superior to everyone else.
I think you're diminishing Tom Brady's early Superbowl performances as if he was more riding the coattails than actually being part of the reason they were winning.
2001: 16/27 59%, 145 yards, 1 TD, 0 INT's (this one I'll give you)
2003: 37/50 66.7%, 354 yards, 3 TD's, 1 INT (this was the shootout against Carolina. It also ranks as the 6th best statistical performance in the Superbowl era by a QB).
2004: 23/33 69.7%, 236 yards, 2 TD's, 0 INT's.
The past ten years, Brady and Manning will have played in the same amount of Superbowls, and Brady has a chance to win the same amount as Manning in that 10 year stretch this year.
So by your own admission, they've been neck and neck for the past 10 years.
Why should Brady's early career success, and Manning's lack of it, count against Brady in any way? That's what I don't get.
...that said in the modern era Montana and Brady are the best QB's I've ever watched play. There are a lot of similarities between the two and their style of play and their results. Montana did it at a time when the rules were a lot more balanced between offense and defense.
wasn't even drafted I believe. Not drafted in the days of 27 round drafts, that is
You really should check the facts before posting (like you adamantly insisting on several thread over several days that the Giants D gave up the fewest points in 2016 a few weeks ago, by quoting an erroneous twitter source repeatedly). It takes less than 10 seconds verify it yourself. Really. Try it.
Johnny Unitas was drafted on the 9th round of a 30-round draft, # 109 over all. Far ahead of Tom Brady's #199 overall.
...that said in the modern era Montana and Brady are the best QB's I've ever watched play. There are a lot of similarities between the two and their style of play and their results. Montana did it at a time when the rules were a lot more balanced between offense and defense.
To consistently dominate as he has, in a 32-team, parity-diluted league is extraordinary and unique - Belichick or no Belichick.
That said, I hesitate to compare across eras. The QB position has changed so dramatically since the early 80s that it's almost a different job. The caveat is especially important with Brady, whose one arguable flaw is a drop-off in performance when he gets punched in the mouth. So it's hard to say how he would have fared in an era when punching QBs in the mouth was an integral - and legal - part of the game.
and Tom B best of all time HC and QB ... and it is not even close IF a person if being objective.
This is exactly what I was thinking - the combination of HC & QB is the GOAT. I don't think Brady would have done as well elsewhere and, while I do think BB would still enjoy success, I wonder if it would have been as much with a different, or several, other QBs. BB's ability to game plan and develop players is amazing, as much as I hate to admit it. BUT, all of this still makes me wonder why either would feel it was necessary to cheat. Why would BB film the Jets defensive signals? I mean, it was the JETS for crying out loud. And why on earth would Brady feel the need to have balls deflated? I don't get it. I do absolutely believe he directed the ball guys to deflate the balls, but never believed for a moment that it ultimately affected his play one way or another - he was going to play well regardless. And even if this team of HC & QB are the GOAT, I think the cheating mars both careers, not necessarily in an asterisk kind of way. Both will still get into the HOF but a negative like cheating will follow them.
Context (i.e., surrounding team/coaching) matters. Brady didn't win more superbowls than Peyton. His teams won more than the Colts.
Consider:
U.S. News' list of worst NFL postseason misses by a kicker:
Mike Vanderjagt, Indianapolis Colts, 2006 AFC Divisional Round
What looked like an easy win for the Steelers devolved into mayhem late, with Indianapolis scoring 15 fourth-quarter points to pull to 21-18. Jerome Bettis then had the original Jeremy Hill moment, fumbling with Pittsburgh trying to run out the clock, and Nick Harper ran the ball back to the Colts 42 before being tripped up by Roethlisberger.
Peyton Manning worked Indianapolis into Pittsburgh territory, setting up a 46-yard attempt for Mike Vanderjagt, at that point the most accurate kicker in NFL history.
Vanderjagt missed wide right with 21 seconds left, and the Steelers ran out the clock to hold off the Colts.
Billy Cundiff, Baltimore Ravens, 2012 AFC Championship
This may be the closest relative to Blair Walsh on the heartbreaking missed kick family tree. With his Ravens down 23-20 to the Patriots and 15 seconds left, Cundiff set up for a 32-yard chip shot in cold weather at Gillette Stadium.
Cundiff pulled the kick way left, and New England took a knee and a trip to Lucas Oil Stadium for the Super Bowl, where Tom Brady and Co. lost to the Giants 21-17.
So we dock Peyton for not making the Superbowl that year and Brady keeps on being clutch...all based on whether a kicker makes a kick?
Then turn to a list of the best kicks in playoff history:
2001 AFC Divisional: New England Patriots 16, Oakland Raiders 13 (OT)
Adam Vinatieri's 23-yard field goal in the overtime snow won it for the Patriots in the final game at Foxboro Stadium. The kick sent New England to the AFC Championship Game, where they would beat Pittsburgh.
Super Bowl XXXVIII: New England Patriots 32, Carolina Panthers 29
New England's Adam Vinatieri added to his long postseason resume with a 41-yard field goal that gave the Patriots the lead with four seconds remaining in regulation. New England would win the Lombardi Trophy, their first of two consecutive and three in four seasons.
Super Bowl XXXVI: New England Patriots 20, St. Louis Rams 17
Adam Vinatieri's 48-yard field goal as time expired in Super Bowl XXXVI takes home the honor as the greatest postseason field goal of the past 10 years. Vinatieri's kick not only won Super Bowl XXXVI, but kicked off a New England dynasty that ruled the decade.
The point of all of the above is just to highlight how dependent a QB is on the team around him and how fine the line can be between clutch and not (and how unrelated to the QB it actually is sometimes). Peyton was robbed of the chance for a superbowl by his kicker. Brady got one based on a miss from the Ravens' kicker and won each of his first three in large part due to some of the most clutch kicks of all time.
Would some of you also say that Brady was somehow not the greatest QB of all time if he had lost all of those games solely because Vinatieri missed? That seems to be the only logical conclusion based on some of the comments above.
...and yes, Brady has enjoyed his share of good fortune - including the wacky interception that sealed his most recent Lombardi. The thing is, he's been operating at this level for sixteen years now. I think "luck" is pretty far down the list of Brady's assets at this point. And your argument can also be flipped around: How easily could those two losses to the Giants have gone the other way?
Brady and the Patriots kept winning... Their division, they cheated, etc...
But as Blogger said, they just keep doing it... Consistently, and as Bill2 said, do you doubt that they'll do it again in another year or two if things stay consistent to what they've been?
isn't one of the GOATs. He clearly is. But to my eye, Peyton is the greatest QB I've ever seen. And to my eye, Bill Belichick is the greatest coach I've ever seen.
My point is that in making the distinction between he and his peers and that level, I think looking at Superbowl wins is lazy. It's the same reason I won't argue Eli or Tom Bradshaw are better than Dan Marino. I don't believe they are, despite the Superbowl wins (and I'm an ardent Eli homer by all accounts). There's more that goes into achieving that result than just having the best QB.
Again, I go back to this. Put Peyton on the Pats teams of the past 15 years. Do you think there's a pretty fair shot they win at least 4 superbowls/appear in 7 (I do). Now put Brady on those Colts/Broncos teams, do you think he still wins 4 superbowls and appears in 7 (I don't). If you agree...you're tacitly acknowledging what I'm saying here...that there was more at play than just who was the better QB.
I've always believed he was the single most dominant player I've ever seen in the NFL.
Just hearing coaches and defenses talk about playing his teams - they always said Peyton and not his team. He was just a force. It was 11 guys and a coaching staff against him.
I truly believe that Peyton Manning would have been successful on any team, in any circumstance, in any era. I think he would have turned that team into the most unstoppable offensive unit in the NFL, made them a perennial playoff team and won a Super Bowl or two.
If you put a young Peyton on this years Browns, this would be true in a meter of a year or two
I fully believe that.
My question on him has been that there clearly has been an impact on him at key moments and unable to deliver as well as he did in the regular season.i think its more about the whittling down of a season to 1 team or 1 Defnse that would inevitably be playing a such a level that could match him.
Is it just too much about 1 man in a team sport that made his teams vulnerable to being shut down if you could manage to outmatch Manning. Do his teams just become too much about him? That it might have led him to not be as successful as he could have been had he found himself paired with a Belichick?
I once interviewed Carmen Basilio, the former Welterweight and Middleweight champion of the world. When I asked him if Sugar Ray Robinson was the greatest boxer of all time, pound for pound he replied, "How could he be? I beat him!"
I had once believed that Brady was limited to being a "clutch" QB like Eli Manning who could rise to the occasion in the right team/game but wasn't as say talented as the Peyton's, Rodgers, etc
I wondered if he could be the dominant single force player that could carry his team and be an unstoppable force that defenses and coaches had to game plan around.
However, Brady has clearly proven that he can do that. That he could be that guy and could lead teams and franchises in that and it wasn't just because of his head coach and organization.
Could Brady have been as successful in a different organization? With a different coach? Especially one with one with a tumultuous front office like the Jets that always made different changes to different whims.
I have a much easier time imagining Peyton doing this.
I do obviously believe that Brady would have found success and would have taken such teams to the playoffs and maybe have won a Super Bowl.
I love how quick some people try to downplay the Patriots SB wins
but then get butthurt when people talk about how lucky the Giants got in their SB wins.
Big Butthurt Interactive never fails
Don't know if that's directed at me or not. I've always said luck is a part of winning a Superbowl (in fact, that's perfectly in line with what I'm saying here....that the difference in Brady and Peyton's resumes in part reflects little more than that in the way of who was lucky enough to have/face a clutch kicker and who wasn't). That's why I try to account for that factor in trying to rank them.
Personally, it doesn't bother me to say that Giants benefited from luck nearly as much as it does when people say the defense carried Eli to a title (especially in regards to 2011).
However, I would like to see him playing in the NFL outside of the Patriots system as a comparison. That would be the true test of how good he really is, beyond an important component in a sum of parts that Bill has built.
1)How many more passes per home game get completed because of the Colts dome?
How many more are accurate allow to allow easier Yards after the catch?
No wind, no sun, no rain, no snow
10% more? X 8 games per year and a few playoff games?
2) How many years did Brady have two WR with as much talent as Harrison and Wayne? How many years with one great WR ( Moss ) vs two very very good ones?
Peyton had 4 coaches. The Pats won in four different systems, ways and strengths.
Peyton was one of the greats. Brady beat him almost 2x more than Peyton beat him.
I agree that the current case for Brady allows debate.
Oddly the Montana argument ignores that Walsh and SF won very well with Young. So Coach and System did not make Montana but the same did make Brady?
To me, here is the key: Brady is not finished. Perhaps not even close to finished. Do you really really doubt that Brady and Pats will not make it back in the next four years?
Note: they get Gronk back and add more in the offseason...like maybe even a good WR or a Vereen like pass catching RB
Remember when the read option was all the rage? Once a couple of defenses set the blueprint for how to defend it, it essentially vanished because DC's around the league took note and used that same strategy.
Does anyone sit here and truly believe that after about 15 years now, what the Patriots are doing is just some "system" and still no one has figured it out? Think about that and how unlikely that really is.
I read an interesting article about them semi-recently. What they do offensively actually isn't that complicated. They take route concepts and they simply run those same routes and same plays out of all different formations.
In one formation, for example, maybe they'll have 2 WR split out wide with a WR in the slot.. they'll have the flanker run a deep post and the SE run a square-in and the slot guy will run a crossing route. Out of the backfield, they'll have the RB run a flat.
Then, using that same personnel grouping, maybe they use a bunch formation or maybe they pull the RB out of the backfield and have him line up in the other slot. All 4 guys are still running the same route they just ran on the previous play but now some of them are running them from different places.
Teams have a difficult time defending them because it can be difficult to really pick up on formation-based tendencies. But this isn't the only reason why they're so difficult to stop. Because if it was, every team would be trying to use these same concepts. And I'm sure some do to a degree.
That said. This doesn't work the same way if you replace Brady with a run of the mill QB. A historic run like this doesn't happen because of just one coach or just one player. This is Bill and Tom together. Forming the greatest QB/HC duo in NFL history.
but if I had to point to the number one reason for the Patriots' success, it's Belichick. He's implemented a winning culture there and has total control and job security. There is zero tolerance for unprofessional bullshit, and whenever a player isn't pulling in the same direction as the team that player is traded for resources. The ruthlessness with personnel has been crucial; it will be interesting to see how they handle Gronk, who while a great player is starting to see the injuries add up.
I would go with Rodgers. He's the best player I've seen.
After that Brady. Then Peyton.
If I had my choice of one QB to start a team I'd go with young Rodgers over anybody. Is that how you judge best? Or is it more about Super Bowls in a team game? I wouldn't pick the best at any other position this way but with QB it goes to the championships which is why Montana and Bradshaw get mentioned too much in this conversation.
RE: RE: Brady is the poster boy of right place, right time
starting with the Bledsoe injury and the tuck rule. To his credit, he maximized his opportunity. Other candidates for "right place, right time": Big Ben, Russell Wilson, and now, Dak Prescott.
By that odd definition, every NFL player is a case of right place, right time.
How do you mean? was Andre Williams in the right place at the right time? what if he got drafted by the Cowboys and he ran behind that line his entire career? Would he be a 3-time Pro Bowler? Wouldn't you consider that to be "right place, right time" vs being unfortunate enough to get drafted by the Giants. Or what if Nassib was Romo's backup instead of playing behind NFL's Iron Man? Would Nassib be the guy everybody is talking about instead of Dak?
how an argument could be made against him being the best of all time.
I always found the well he's not undefeated in Super Bowls like Montana is.
So Montana lost more before getting to the actual Super Bowl than Brady has and we're supposed to use that against Brady?
4-2 in Super Bowls is better than 4-0. Yet people act like 4-0 is better than 4-2
Well it was tougher to get to the SB for an old school NFC QB, while it was harder to win it outright for modern QBs of either conference. The 1984 season says it all: win grind it out games against Giants & Bears then slays the Marino led Dolphins after his historic season.
I do think that 49er fans themselves would be the first to question Montana's greatness if he lost twice to a team in the Super Bowl that wasn't a better all around team. Cincinnati was essentially the best AFC opponent to the Niners and kept it tight in both games, and didn't win either.
When the Giants beat the Niners in '85, '86, '90, they were on the same level or better. Every year had a more or less predestined champion.
It's one of those things that can be argued either way. Brady had better QB competition in his conference, but overall team and HC, he had a nice edge.
When the Ravens and Steelers brought a complete package, they created problems for Brady.
Brady for most of his career had one of the 3-4 best QB's of all time in his conference, so spare me how much harder it was to get to the Super Bowl in the 80's. It wasn't. It's a lot harder to keep a team together and be a dynasty now than it was in the 80's
The flip side is that Joe Montana lost championship games to Theismann, McMahon, Hostetler, and divisional games to Simms and Wade Wilson.
Back then QB meant a helluva lot less than it does now in a head to head showdown. It meant a lot for sustained excellence, which is why the Niners were the team of the '80s.
Maybe if Marino or Elway played on a similarly stacked NFC team your argument could hold muster.
As it stands, Brady's HC & defenses whipped Peyton Manning more often than not....Brady was essentially an old school NFC QB in that sense going up against the Colts.
The few years a great defense existed in the AFC, Brady was no better than 50/50. Ravens '09, Jets '10....Ravens '12, Ravens '14 almost a loss.
Last year's AFC Championship game was a little taste of Joe Montana's career.
Quote:
He's played under the best coach and surrounded by the best coached team every year.
under the best offensive system ever, due to it's ability to keep the same playbook, despite multiple OCs, and yet evolve each year to take advantage of personnel and matchups.
For me I can't help but remember how great Montana was and the comp he had to get through in the NFC Just to get to the SB. The Bears and their great D, the Skins with Gibbs and their Hogs, the Giants with LT, Parcells et al. Hell even the Rams in the West had some really good,tough teams.
What TB has done is impressive no question but I just don't think he's had to face tough competition year in year out. Shit, they went 3-1 to start the year without him.
I think it is legitimate to proclaim a player the best of his era, but not to state that a player is the best ever.
There have been many great players at the quarterback position. Brady is surely among the very best of them.
He's 39 years old.
Montanas knocks
Never threw for 4K
Best wr ever
Completion percentage is inflated in WCO
He's 39 years old.
that's how easy they make it for him. hell, I don't even think Brady is that smart.
clearly.
Brady's career is unparalleled.
I realize some of the people who watched Montana in his prime will still say it's him.. but Brady's consistence has been absolutely remarkable. And he's so seldom had elite skill players compared to a lot of other guys.
There was a time when Julian Edelman was a cornerback...
384 yards and 3 TD's tonight. No Gronk. Doesn't matter. 39 years old.
This is just who is the best QB. Not taking championships into consideration.
Late 70s. Never saw Unitas and earlier. Saw Tarkenton, Staubach, Bradshaw and everything since then.
But if this was all just some "system", the NFL, which is a copycat league, would have figured it out by now. They've been doing this for like 15 years.
7 Super Bowl appearances in 15 years is absolutely ridiculous in this salary cap era. The league is built in a way where this shouldn't happen.. and doesn't happen for any of the other 31 teams. But the Patriots defy that completely because of Belichick and Brady.
I could agree with that
Yes
( Hey arc. Hope you have a great New Year)
players . He is great a leader his skill set is second to
none .He is fiery and competitive he even declined and or
I think took pay cuts to help the cap . Sure he is cockey
but I don't think he is as bad a person that some make him
out to be . His Wife isn't too bad either .
All the guy does is win I don't know whats the argument
that he is not .
I like the guy to an extent I think the Plax prediction
response was pretty funny but when your confident enough
to back up your talk oh well it is what it is .
But if this was all just some "system", the NFL, which is a copycat league, would have figured it out by now. They've been doing this for like 15 years.
7 Super Bowl appearances in 15 years is absolutely ridiculous in this salary cap era. The league is built in a way where this shouldn't happen.. and doesn't happen for any of the other 31 teams. But the Patriots defy that completely because of Belichick and Brady.
Belichick is the "system". You can't duplicate it. Also, the AFC has been less than impressive in this era. Always a 2 or 3 team race. Having an easy division year after year doesn't hurt either.
( Hey arc. Hope you have a great New Year)
Thank you, Bill! Right back atcha!
In two weeks, 14 percent of all Super Bowls will have been started, in part, by Tom Brady.
He has the hardware
What else could he possibly need to do?
Here's how I look at the question - you have a team going to the Super Bowl and get to pick one QB from NFL history in his prime to be your starter, who do you pick?
I pick Brady. Some may disagree, certainly some other greats in the mix
When Peyton got hurt on the Colts ... yeah.
It's a valid point. I saw a poll of xNFL QBs recently asked who they thought the best QB ever was and most of them said Dan Marino, Johnny U was #2. Some of them said Brady could have played back then and been successful.
The rule changes are extremely dramatic, it's really not possible to compare today's QBs to ones that had to function when defense was allowed to play defense.
This because he is a liar and a cheat and just a piece of scum, no-class player.
+1
Cruzin is 100% correct. QB's before the late 70's had to play against DB's that could hack WR's all down the field...no 5 yard rule. Totally different game.
IMO Unitas is #1. Called his own plays, was lethal at the end of games, and could pass as well as anyone today. Played in the 50's, but could still go toe to toe with Namath in the early 70's (I watched him through most of the 60's into the 70's). If Johnny U. was playing with today's rules, it would be a joke...think Warner accuracy with Luck tools.
He's an Eli Manning away from getting SB ring number 7!
Tonight didn't show me anything new or special about Brady. He had great protection, his guys were open, they all made plays, and his defense shut down the Steelers so the team was always in control.
Since Brady became the starter, the Patriots are 14-6 in games with backup QBs. That's slightly better than going 11-5 over the course of a season. For comparison, Eli and the Giants have done that only 3 times over the 12 full years of his career. Brees has done that 5 times in 15 years. Marino? 4 times in 13 seasons. Rodgers? 4 of 8.
Teams win games and championships. Brady is the perfect QB for the Patriots, but I think much of the credit goes to Belichick and the way his team is prepared ever week. They've shown year after year with how willing they are to part with stars that they are bigger than any one player.
Little Bill is the best coach i have ever seen. AND he is so much better then the 2nd best coach that it's not even funny.
For me i would say montana and peyton are above him.
Elway and Marino right there
And Rodgers is coming up fast
For me, I've come to this conclusion about Brady versus others:
Most consistently great QB over the longest period of time ever.
Now as far as pure elite best ever ability, I find it hard to put him above Joe Montana and a few other QBs. Montana had far superior footwork and mobility, and ability to extend plays. People like to mention if Brady had mobility he'd be insane, and forget that Montana had mobility that was only eclipsed by a handful of QBs. 59 yards rushing in a single Super Bowl is #3 all time by Kap & McNair.
The '80s was very rough on QBs. Brady would not have liked the treatment they got back then if he complains about the minor hits he gets now. There's no way in hell a 39 year old man is playing QB at a high level back in the day, let alone starting.
Also, the whole Montana played with Rice & Taylor argument gets subsided a lot when you look at his career '81-'84 and '93-'94 in KC.
But after it's all said and done, being available as a pro bowl QB up to age 40 is remarkable. It's like the Jerry Rice definition of greatness when he recorded two 1000 yard seasons past age 40.
If Brady gets a 5th ring, you just might have to give it to him.
I always found the well he's not undefeated in Super Bowls like Montana is.
So Montana lost more before getting to the actual Super Bowl than Brady has and we're supposed to use that against Brady?
4-2 in Super Bowls is better than 4-0. Yet people act like 4-0 is better than 4-2
I always found the well he's not undefeated in Super Bowls like Montana is.
So Montana lost more before getting to the actual Super Bowl than Brady has and we're supposed to use that against Brady?
4-2 in Super Bowls is better than 4-0. Yet people act like 4-0 is better than 4-2
Well it was tougher to get to the SB for an old school NFC QB, while it was harder to win it outright for modern QBs of either conference. The 1984 season says it all: win grind it out games against Giants & Bears then slays the Marino led Dolphins after his historic season.
I do think that 49er fans themselves would be the first to question Montana's greatness if he lost twice to a team in the Super Bowl that wasn't a better all around team. Cincinnati was essentially the best AFC opponent to the Niners and kept it tight in both games, and didn't win either.
When the Giants beat the Niners in '85, '86, '90, they were on the same level or better. Every year had a more or less predestined champion.
It's one of those things that can be argued either way. Brady had better QB competition in his conference, but overall team and HC, he had a nice edge.
When the Ravens and Steelers brought a complete package, they created problems for Brady.
The names will be known just like Unitas, Tarkenton, Starr, Staubach, etc. are for most real football fans, but how many of us can compare those guys the way we can compare the modern day guys?
You have the very same issue for the most part comparing Formula One racers from the '50s to modern day, and that's just ONE person, LOL.
If he was a Giant, we would build a monument to him.
What he has done from a skinny 6th Rd pick to now is amazing.
I have nothing but respect for him.
This has been an amazing run by that franchise.
I do love that the Giants are the only team to get the best of them during this run.
Quote:
how an argument could be made against him being the best of all time.
I always found the well he's not undefeated in Super Bowls like Montana is.
So Montana lost more before getting to the actual Super Bowl than Brady has and we're supposed to use that against Brady?
4-2 in Super Bowls is better than 4-0. Yet people act like 4-0 is better than 4-2
Well it was tougher to get to the SB for an old school NFC QB, while it was harder to win it outright for modern QBs of either conference. The 1984 season says it all: win grind it out games against Giants & Bears then slays the Marino led Dolphins after his historic season.
I do think that 49er fans themselves would be the first to question Montana's greatness if he lost twice to a team in the Super Bowl that wasn't a better all around team. Cincinnati was essentially the best AFC opponent to the Niners and kept it tight in both games, and didn't win either.
When the Giants beat the Niners in '85, '86, '90, they were on the same level or better. Every year had a more or less predestined champion.
It's one of those things that can be argued either way. Brady had better QB competition in his conference, but overall team and HC, he had a nice edge.
When the Ravens and Steelers brought a complete package, they created problems for Brady.
Brady for most of his career had one of the 3-4 best QB's of all time in his conference, so spare me how much harder it was to get to the Super Bowl in the 80's. It wasn't. It's a lot harder to keep a team together and be a dynasty now than it was in the 80's
He traded away his two best players on D and they abused Pitt. A team who ran over our D. One in the middle of the year. He's so far above every other coach right now it's not even close. Brady at 39 is playing at a level higher than everyone except a few guys.
Cruzin is 100% correct. QB's before the late 70's had to play against DB's that could hack WR's all down the field...no 5 yard rule. Totally different game.
IMO Unitas is #1. Called his own plays, was lethal at the end of games, and could pass as well as anyone today. Played in the 50's, but could still go toe to toe with Namath in the early 70's (I watched him through most of the 60's into the 70's). If Johnny U. was playing with today's rules, it would be a joke...think Warner accuracy with Luck tools.
I wish I had seen Unitas playing to have a better feel for this question. The problem is that these debates are beatin' to death by the talking heads and they tend to live in the now; which doesn't offer up a good comp. I have always leaned towards Montana over Brady, but while I wanted to give Unitas the nod it's hard if you've never seen him play.
To the debate of 4-0 vs. 4-2 and 80's play vs. 2000's, I'd definitely lean on the undefeated SB record as more advantageous and I do think it is easier to play QB nowadays than the 80's. But I have given into to the notion of Brady being the best of my generation (watching football since '76).
He's a great QB. The end
Otherwise, an already-insane argument of who is the best would reach epic proportions...
Patriots back-ups have the same winning percentage as Peyton and Montana, and a better winning percentage than Elway, Marino, Unitas, Favre, and Rodgers.
A QB is the most important position in the sport and maybe in any sport. But he is only on the field for ~40% of the game and during that 40%, he still requires the cohesive functionality of 10 other players.
QBs are influential, but teams win games and teams win championships.
So did Montana.
I've always had Montana first, but after this year I am prepared to let Brady move ahead. He is incredible.
That said, if I had to pick a best, I don't see how I could skip over Brady. The amount of success he's had is incredible. Just makes those two SBs all that much more satisfying.
The guy's playoff record: 24 - 9, is equivalent to two full regular seasons, but in the playoffs. That's insane. He's thrown for 8600 yards and 61 TD's in those games.
Those numbers are staggering.
Quote:
He's played under the best coach and surrounded by the best coached team every year.
So did Montana.
I've always had Montana first, but after this year I am prepared to let Brady move ahead. He is incredible.
Me too, and I feel like most of the friends I have my age that have been watching since childhood did too. And I may be wrong, but I don't remember Montana ever getting dinged for having Walsh.
Nice reminder that two of the greatest teams of all time, the 1990 49ers and 2007 Patriots were thwarted by our Giants.
Look, there are a lot of all time greats. There's got to be something that separates them somewhere, and that's where Championships come in to play. That's what did it for Montana, and that's what now does it for Brady, to me.
I think the argument could be made that Peyton did little more than ride the wave to his last Superbowl. I don't know if what he did during that Denver run was "impressive".
That's what makes these cross-era comparisons so useless. If you could drop ship prime Montana to today's NFL, I'm pretty sure he'd put up much more ridiculous numbers than what he cranked out back then.
I feel like both have surpassed everyone else including Montana.
Im not sure how to distinguish between the two when you take the totality of their careers and accomplishments into account as well as the eyeball test on the field and at varying points in their career.
Brady has had the advantage of one franchise with one head coach and basically one system his entire career. Football is all about the HC/QB combo and Belichick is the best of all time.
Mannng has never had that. He had so many HCs and went to 4 Super Bowls with 4 different coaches and is the first ever to win with 2 different franchises. He even reversed his fortunes against Brady and NE later in his career.
Its just so close, to me. Between the 2. I think they are far and away above everyone.
I'm just saying that that really is a stat padding Superbowl for him.
2-2 in Championship games does look considerably better than the 1-2 that he would have retired with without it. Peyton for a loooooooong time was labeled a big game choker. Tom Brady has NEVER had that label.
Peyton Manning played pretty bad in the Superbowl he actually won. Tom Brady got his team the lead with under 2 minutes in both Superbowls he lost. As somebody else said, Tom Brady is two Eli Manning miracles away from having 6 rings right now, working on 7. As great as Manning was, he just doesn't have that and something needs to separate guys.
How many Superbowls do you think Brady wins having to go through Peyton and the Belichick coached Pats? More, less, the same amount?
My answer to that question is why I always answer NO to Brady as the GOAT (or even better than Peyton).
Especially his first title. That was a defense, run game team. He didn't even finish the AFC Championship game vs Pitt, Bledsoe did. He was out early in the 2Q of a 7-3 game. In all honesty, they didn't even beat the Raiders in the divisional game, the Tuck Rule was the biggest gift ever. He was a game manager that season. He threw 1 Touchdown in that entire postseason. His passer rating was 77.
Im not trying to take anything away from him. I just find it amusing that people love to deconstruct Peyton Manning and find all sorts of ways to take away from his accomplishments but never Tom Brady.
I find it equally fascinating that people do the same to Eli Manning but never Ben Roethlisberger.
I'd probably still put Montana slightly ahead - I think the era was a tougher one to play in for a QB IMO.
n comment 13336605 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
Peyton rode that defense because he was broken down, further showing how much the sport is a team game. But when he was healthy and went to Denver in a completely new situation, he smashed records.
I'm just saying that that really is a stat padding Superbowl for him.
2-2 in Championship games does look considerably better than the 1-2 that he would have retired with without it. Peyton for a loooooooong time was labeled a big game choker. Tom Brady has NEVER had that label.
Peyton Manning played pretty bad in the Superbowl he actually won. Tom Brady got his team the lead with under 2 minutes in both Superbowls he lost. As somebody else said, Tom Brady is two Eli Manning miracles away from having 6 rings right now, working on 7. As great as Manning was, he just doesn't have that and something needs to separate guys.
Quote:
Peyton rode that defense because he was broken down, further showing how much the sport is a team game. But when he was healthy and went to Denver in a completely new situation, he smashed records.
I'm just saying that that really is a stat padding Superbowl for him.
2-2 in Championship games does look considerably better than the 1-2 that he would have retired with without it. Peyton for a loooooooong time was labeled a big game choker. Tom Brady has NEVER had that label.
Peyton Manning played pretty bad in the Superbowl he actually won. Tom Brady got his team the lead with under 2 minutes in both Superbowls he lost. As somebody else said, Tom Brady is two Eli Manning miracles away from having 6 rings right now, working on 7. As great as Manning was, he just doesn't have that and something needs to separate guys.
Big game choker analysis on Peyton/Mr. Clutch is really such an interesting discussion. Remember the AFC Championship game with the Big Ben tackle to save the game? Remember what followed that tackle? Peyton driving his team into FG range in the clutch and his idiot kicker missing. Thus continued his "choke" legacy while Viniatieri drilled the same kicks for Brady. Completely random and unrelated to relative skill set of the two QBs. And how about the game for Brady against the Chargers where he literally threw the game losing interception only to have them inexplicably fumble it back to the Pats? These random moments are just a snipper of why looking just at stats or big game results is such an imperfect measure.
Bottom line? The two best QBs of all time were drafted in the 6th and 3rd round..😎
Bottom line? The two best QBs of all time were drafted in the 6th and 3rd round..😎
To me, Peyton tops em both. Have always felt that way.
To some degree (and this is I think the debate point) you have to give the HC and system credit for his success. How much of the credit for the Patriots dominance do you give to Belichick and his overall system. I'm guessing Brady on the Giants has similar stats/win % to Eli and probably loses much more time to injury (hell he might even be retired already).
Quote:
Brady or Montana..An opinion of course, but still, taking either one as the best would not be inappropriate..
Bottom line? The two best QBs of all time were drafted in the 6th and 3rd round..😎
To me, Peyton tops em both. Have always felt that way.
Regular season? I'd agree..Playoffs? Brady or Montana
Traded away a Chandler Jones, cuts a Mankins, let's a Wilfork go, doesn't matter
Take away his draft picks, doesn't matter
Fine him, doesn't matter
Lose players to injury or prison, doesn't matter
Keeps winning, no cap issues, it doesn't matter
It's the coach.
Quote:
In comment 13336600 PaulBlakeTSU said:
Quote:
Peyton rode that defense because he was broken down, further showing how much the sport is a team game. But when he was healthy and went to Denver in a completely new situation, he smashed records.
I'm just saying that that really is a stat padding Superbowl for him.
2-2 in Championship games does look considerably better than the 1-2 that he would have retired with without it. Peyton for a loooooooong time was labeled a big game choker. Tom Brady has NEVER had that label.
Peyton Manning played pretty bad in the Superbowl he actually won. Tom Brady got his team the lead with under 2 minutes in both Superbowls he lost. As somebody else said, Tom Brady is two Eli Manning miracles away from having 6 rings right now, working on 7. As great as Manning was, he just doesn't have that and something needs to separate guys.
Big game choker analysis on Peyton/Mr. Clutch is really such an interesting discussion. Remember the AFC Championship game with the Big Ben tackle to save the game? Remember what followed that tackle? Peyton driving his team into FG range in the clutch and his idiot kicker missing. Thus continued his "choke" legacy while Viniatieri drilled the same kicks for Brady. Completely random and unrelated to relative skill set of the two QBs. And how about the game for Brady against the Chargers where he literally threw the game losing interception only to have them inexplicably fumble it back to the Pats? These random moments are just a snipper of why looking just at stats or big game results is such an imperfect measure.
Manning was one and done 9 times in the playoffs in his career.
Brady has been one and done twice.
He was about as good as Big Ben was when he won his first SB, so throw that one out in comparison to Montana, and they should have lost to Seattle, so, that Lombardi was a gift, even though he played great, we all know SB titles weigh heavily in this conversation. He would have 3 at this point to Montana's 2.
He wins, and plays well, he stands alone.
The reason he never had the same label as Peyton did is that. Yet, does anyone doubt that if Tom Brady was the Colts QB from 2001 to 2004 that they wouldn't have won SBs let alone 3 of 4?
If you could somehow flip Brady's career, imagine what he would have been labeled?
The last 10 playoffs, Brady has went to 3 SBs and won just 1. He lost at 18-0. During that time he has been defeated in 3 AFC title games by Peyton Manning, who won 2 SBs. Including one game where he had a 21-3 lead and threw an interception to end it in the final minute.
His lone SB win was a game that was was really lost. It was a fluke play made by his defense and better clock management and play calling would have resulted in a third loss. I mean the game was out of his hands. It was lost and he had no say in the final outcome.
During this stretch they had lost 4 AFC title games and were knocked out 3 times at home.
He was 0-5 vs Mannings and they were all in the title games and SBs.
The reputation is influenced by previous history, which he obviously earned.
Yet, is there any doubt that Tom Brady has been a better QB for all of the above than he was during his 3 of 4 SB wins?
You can't just evaluate on things like SB wins. Its obviously a big and important factor but not the only one.
I don't say this to try and take away from Tom Brady's success over the last 10 years. He has been incredible and tied for the best ever. Its just to take away from simple-minded arguments that reduce complexity to one factor.
Here's an interesting bit of trivia. Rodgers has now been eliminated from the playoffs 3 times where his opponent scored at least 44 points. You know how many times in Brady's entire regular season and playoff career that his opponent scored at least 44 points? ZERO.
Over Rodgers' 7 playoff losses, his opponent scored an average of 36.3 points per game. In Brady's ENTIRE regular season and postseason career, his opponent scored 36 or more points only 7 total times.
Are these numbers cherry-picked? Sure. But it still shows how QB "success" is out of any QB's control.
The reason he never had the same label as Peyton did is that. Yet, does anyone doubt that if Tom Brady was the Colts QB from 2001 to 2004 that they wouldn't have won SBs let alone 3 of 4?
If you could somehow flip Brady's career, imagine what he would have been labeled?
The last 10 playoffs, Brady has went to 3 SBs and won just 1. He lost at 18-0. During that time he has been defeated in 3 AFC title games by Peyton Manning, who won 2 SBs. Including one game where he had a 21-3 lead and threw an interception to end it in the final minute.
His lone SB win was a game that was was really lost. It was a fluke play made by his defense and better clock management and play calling would have resulted in a third loss. I mean the game was out of his hands. It was lost and he had no say in the final outcome.
During this stretch they had lost 4 AFC title games and were knocked out 3 times at home.
He was 0-5 vs Mannings and they were all in the title games and SBs.
The reputation is influenced by previous history, which he obviously earned.
Yet, is there any doubt that Tom Brady has been a better QB for all of the above than he was during his 3 of 4 SB wins?
You can't just evaluate on things like SB wins. Its obviously a big and important factor but not the only one.
I don't say this to try and take away from Tom Brady's success over the last 10 years. He has been incredible and tied for the best ever. Its just to take away from simple-minded arguments that reduce complexity to one factor.
It's not a simple minded argument, it's a tiebreaker.
Something has to separate the cream of the crop.
Brady and Peyton have all the records and success. If you're picking a definitive number 1, something has to be the tiebreaker.
In my opinion, playoff success and Championships is that tiebreaker.
I don't believe that to be simple minded.
They're both in the Top 5 All Time in Passing Yards
They're both in the Top 5 All Time in TD's (both have had the NFL record for most TD's in a season)
They're both in the Top 5 All Time in Completion Percentage
Regular Season Records:
Brady: 183 - 52
Manning: 186 - 79
If you're not going to look at playoff records and Championships, how the hell are you going to separate them?
Watch him clip the Falcons wings and show a lacrosse player at WR how to get open. Brady is a great student, and egoless IMO, but it's the coach who maximizes the potential.
Can some team from the AFC East RISE UP JUST FUCKING ONCE and win that division? The Jets, Bills and Dolphins should be ashamed of themselves. I would be embarrassed if I rooted for any of them. Win a fucking division just once in a decade for fucks sake. ONE time! ONCE!!!!!!
Fuck Brady and his perfect QB RATING and life. Fuck the Pats. Fuck the owner. Fuck those spoiled fair weather fans that, outside of a small percentage wouldn't know loyalty from their asses.
One division title in a year where Brady was hurt for the year????? ONE over 16 years???? Wait, TWO...sorry...
That division is an abomination. Every other team should be fucking relegated. Shame on them all. Disgrace. The Pats are beyond great but man, do they have help. They play in a twinkie of a division.
n comment 13336683 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
Does anyone honestly doubt that Tom Brady is a better QB now then he was when they won 3 out of 4 SBS?
The reason he never had the same label as Peyton did is that. Yet, does anyone doubt that if Tom Brady was the Colts QB from 2001 to 2004 that they wouldn't have won SBs let alone 3 of 4?
If you could somehow flip Brady's career, imagine what he would have been labeled?
The last 10 playoffs, Brady has went to 3 SBs and won just 1. He lost at 18-0. During that time he has been defeated in 3 AFC title games by Peyton Manning, who won 2 SBs. Including one game where he had a 21-3 lead and threw an interception to end it in the final minute.
His lone SB win was a game that was was really lost. It was a fluke play made by his defense and better clock management and play calling would have resulted in a third loss. I mean the game was out of his hands. It was lost and he had no say in the final outcome.
During this stretch they had lost 4 AFC title games and were knocked out 3 times at home.
He was 0-5 vs Mannings and they were all in the title games and SBs.
The reputation is influenced by previous history, which he obviously earned.
Yet, is there any doubt that Tom Brady has been a better QB for all of the above than he was during his 3 of 4 SB wins?
You can't just evaluate on things like SB wins. Its obviously a big and important factor but not the only one.
I don't say this to try and take away from Tom Brady's success over the last 10 years. He has been incredible and tied for the best ever. Its just to take away from simple-minded arguments that reduce complexity to one factor.
It's not a simple minded argument, it's a tiebreaker.
Something has to separate the cream of the crop.
Brady and Peyton have all the records and success. If you're picking a definitive number 1, something has to be the tiebreaker.
In my opinion, playoff success and Championships is that tiebreaker.
I don't believe that to be simple minded.
They're both in the Top 5 All Time in Passing Yards
They're both in the Top 5 All Time in TD's (both have had the NFL record for most TD's in a season)
They're both in the Top 5 All Time in Completion Percentage
Regular Season Records:
Brady: 183 - 52
Manning: 186 - 79
If you're not going to look at playoff records and Championships, how the hell are you going to separate them?
In those categories you list- Peyton Manning has the clear edge. He is the all time leader in those categories. He has 10000 more pass yards, he has almost 100 more TDs. He has the single season TD record. He has more MVPs, etc.
Of none of these stats and these kind of individual stats does Tom Brady hold an advantage over Peyton Manning.
You expanded to the top 5 all-time, to include Brady. Because Peyton isnt top 5 in any of them. He is the all time leader in them.
Its not a tiebreaker.
Your view on the postseason is what gets you to a tie and then you give the edge to Brady based on that factor lone, which you judge to be more significant
In comment 13336683 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
Does anyone honestly doubt that Tom Brady is a better QB now then he was when they won 3 out of 4 SBS?
The reason he never had the same label as Peyton did is that. Yet, does anyone doubt that if Tom Brady was the Colts QB from 2001 to 2004 that they wouldn't have won SBs let alone 3 of 4?
If you could somehow flip Brady's career, imagine what he would have been labeled?
The last 10 playoffs, Brady has went to 3 SBs and won just 1. He lost at 18-0. During that time he has been defeated in 3 AFC title games by Peyton Manning, who won 2 SBs. Including one game where he had a 21-3 lead and threw an interception to end it in the final minute.
His lone SB win was a game that was was really lost. It was a fluke play made by his defense and better clock management and play calling would have resulted in a third loss. I mean the game was out of his hands. It was lost and he had no say in the final outcome.
During this stretch they had lost 4 AFC title games and were knocked out 3 times at home.
He was 0-5 vs Mannings and they were all in the title games and SBs.
The reputation is influenced by previous history, which he obviously earned.
Yet, is there any doubt that Tom Brady has been a better QB for all of the above than he was during his 3 of 4 SB wins?
You can't just evaluate on things like SB wins. Its obviously a big and important factor but not the only one.
I don't say this to try and take away from Tom Brady's success over the last 10 years. He has been incredible and tied for the best ever. Its just to take away from simple-minded arguments that reduce complexity to one factor.
It's not a simple minded argument, it's a tiebreaker.
Something has to separate the cream of the crop.
Brady and Peyton have all the records and success. If you're picking a definitive number 1, something has to be the tiebreaker.
In my opinion, playoff success and Championships is that tiebreaker.
I don't believe that to be simple minded.
They're both in the Top 5 All Time in Passing Yards
They're both in the Top 5 All Time in TD's (both have had the NFL record for most TD's in a season)
They're both in the Top 5 All Time in Completion Percentage
Regular Season Records:
Brady: 183 - 52
Manning: 186 - 79
If you're not going to look at playoff records and Championships, how the hell are you going to separate them?
You can't just say "saying Brady has won more Superbowls and playoff games is simple minded". That would be like me saying your argument there about the being the all time leader is simple minded (it's not).
But in a subjective debate such as "best ever", it just depends what the individual making the argument holds in higher regard.
Peyton is 9th overall with 251.
Brady didn't even make the Top 50 with 152.
Or an unfathomable brainfart from Carroll and Wilson from being 0-8 given those FIVE 3 point wins that could have easily gone the opponents' way
He may get hit and never play again
or
He may play 3-5 more years and make 2 more SB's and throw for 4000 yards each of those seasons
Neither he nor Hoodie show any signs of slowing down or easing up. That team looks like it is on the ascent...especially on defense.
If Brady makes 1 more SB after this and wins this one or that one....then arguing he is not the GOAT becomes really difficult
That to me is the hard part to comprehend. He is not done yet as an elite QB leading an elite team and an elite organization.
I think arguing against him as the GOAT in more five years is going to be a matter of not liking something he said or jealousy or just to be contrarian.
Im sorry but they will get to the SB again after this. Maybe twice. You have to be great ( and surrounded by great) to put yourself in such a position
Bradshaw won 4 Super Bowls. I have yet to see anyone mention him on here as one of the three best ever.
Brady has had tremendous regular season success as well, just not as much as Manning.
You are trying to act as if the world are equal in that regard. They are not. This is why Manning has more MVPs, more Pro Bowls, holds every major all time QB record.
Brady, however, has had more postseason success than Manning.
Manning has also had tremendous postseason success but not as much as Brady.
Now, why I call t simpleminded is that the bulk of Brady's postseason success and the yard stick for why you and others consider him better is based on the 3 to 4 stretch in the early part of his career.
The subsequent 10 year stretch, when Brady was actually a better QB, has seen basically an even Brady and Manning. Brady would have to win this upcoming game to match Peyton in the last 10 years. Although, he would still be 0-3 against him in the playoffs.
Brady would be viewed quite differently if we had only judged on his last 10 years. His reputation in the early part of his career was as the unflappable QB who could lead the late game rally and deliver the win. He has actually been unable to do that in the last 10 years and has been the victim of that - especially from the Manning Brothers. He has actually thrown many a back breaking INT during this period like vs Denver in 2005 or the Colts in the AFC title game and some others.
I'm not trying to discredit what Brady did in the first 4 years. I just don't find it a complex argument to say this period is what makes him better than Manning and especially when I think it's indisputable that he is better now then he was yet found less success. Its a team game and a team sport. The QB an unusually large share of the outcome as does HC but its not the only factor. I think a QB has to win a SB at some point (which is why I rule out Marino) and they both have but I dont think winning more is the final measure.
I honestly cant say who is better. They are both unbelievable and I think equally great. I think both superior to everyone else.
Bradshaw won 4 Super Bowls. I have yet to see anyone mention him on here as one of the three best ever.
Bradshaw doesn't have the stats, the records, or the League MVP's to be considered.
Brady is the total package. Peyton as well. Montana is there, too, but can't compare eras, but he was a guy that had the stats, the records, the MVP's, and the Championships. Those three guys are the ones that had it all.
Brady has had tremendous regular season success as well, just not as much as Manning.
You are trying to act as if the world are equal in that regard. They are not. This is why Manning has more MVPs, more Pro Bowls, holds every major all time QB record.
Brady, however, has had more postseason success than Manning.
Manning has also had tremendous postseason success but not as much as Brady.
Now, why I call t simpleminded is that the bulk of Brady's postseason success and the yard stick for why you and others consider him better is based on the 3 to 4 stretch in the early part of his career.
The subsequent 10 year stretch, when Brady was actually a better QB, has seen basically an even Brady and Manning. Brady would have to win this upcoming game to match Peyton in the last 10 years. Although, he would still be 0-3 against him in the playoffs.
Brady would be viewed quite differently if we had only judged on his last 10 years. His reputation in the early part of his career was as the unflappable QB who could lead the late game rally and deliver the win. He has actually been unable to do that in the last 10 years and has been the victim of that - especially from the Manning Brothers. He has actually thrown many a back breaking INT during this period like vs Denver in 2005 or the Colts in the AFC title game and some others.
I'm not trying to discredit what Brady did in the first 4 years. I just don't find it a complex argument to say this period is what makes him better than Manning and especially when I think it's indisputable that he is better now then he was yet found less success. Its a team game and a team sport. The QB an unusually large share of the outcome as does HC but its not the only factor. I think a QB has to win a SB at some point (which is why I rule out Marino) and they both have but I dont think winning more is the final measure.
I honestly cant say who is better. They are both unbelievable and I think equally great. I think both superior to everyone else.
I think you're diminishing Tom Brady's early Superbowl performances as if he was more riding the coattails than actually being part of the reason they were winning.
2001: 16/27 59%, 145 yards, 1 TD, 0 INT's (this one I'll give you)
2003: 37/50 66.7%, 354 yards, 3 TD's, 1 INT (this was the shootout against Carolina. It also ranks as the 6th best statistical performance in the Superbowl era by a QB).
2004: 23/33 69.7%, 236 yards, 2 TD's, 0 INT's.
The past ten years, Brady and Manning will have played in the same amount of Superbowls, and Brady has a chance to win the same amount as Manning in that 10 year stretch this year.
So by your own admission, they've been neck and neck for the past 10 years.
Why should Brady's early career success, and Manning's lack of it, count against Brady in any way? That's what I don't get.
By that odd definition, every NFL player is a case of right place, right time.
Ive said he is tied as the greatest all-time QB ever and Im holding something against him??
I agree that Brady has had the better postseason career than manning, although I dont think its as great a disparity as some believe, partly because Brady's missteps are overlooked due to his early success.
I think Brady has had an advantage in HC and stability of team/organization that is in part attributable to his success
I think if some as the situations/context had changed Manning could have equaled the success that Brady had and vice versa as I believe they both have proved.
I think Brady showed he can put up the type of numbers manning did when he was given that type of talent like Moss and system
I think Brady also showed that he wasnt this perfect/flawless magical postseason QB when he didnt have that dynasty team and was vulnerable to big letdowns, losses and even clutch failures like Peyton has had in the playoffs
Peyton has showed he can have huge playoff games (he had a few perfect QB rating games) and performances and even have magical comeback type moments like he did in AFC title game vs NE in 06 and be a game manager type QB and win as well.
I think Peyton should get some credit for going to a SB with 4 different HCs and being only person to win with 2 teams.
I would consider Peyton's advantage in regular season to be equal to Brady's advantage in the playoffs.
I think if you changed situations, teams, scenarios, they would have had interchangeable results.
Which is why I consider them equal?
So.. what's the "system" ?
1-3 is a big difference from 2-2. Especially in the manner of the one win.
Would you consider Brady to be a worse QB if he doesn't win this game?
Personally, I have made my judgement. Brady and Manning are equals, no matter the result in 2 weeks. I think they have proven all they have needed to prove.
In comment 13336853 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
They have not had an equal regular season career. By every measure you could come up with, Manning has been more successful in the regular season.
Brady has had tremendous regular season success as well, just not as much as Manning.
You are trying to act as if the world are equal in that regard. They are not. This is why Manning has more MVPs, more Pro Bowls, holds every major all time QB record.
Brady, however, has had more postseason success than Manning.
Manning has also had tremendous postseason success but not as much as Brady.
Now, why I call t simpleminded is that the bulk of Brady's postseason success and the yard stick for why you and others consider him better is based on the 3 to 4 stretch in the early part of his career.
The subsequent 10 year stretch, when Brady was actually a better QB, has seen basically an even Brady and Manning. Brady would have to win this upcoming game to match Peyton in the last 10 years. Although, he would still be 0-3 against him in the playoffs.
Brady would be viewed quite differently if we had only judged on his last 10 years. His reputation in the early part of his career was as the unflappable QB who could lead the late game rally and deliver the win. He has actually been unable to do that in the last 10 years and has been the victim of that - especially from the Manning Brothers. He has actually thrown many a back breaking INT during this period like vs Denver in 2005 or the Colts in the AFC title game and some others.
I'm not trying to discredit what Brady did in the first 4 years. I just don't find it a complex argument to say this period is what makes him better than Manning and especially when I think it's indisputable that he is better now then he was yet found less success. Its a team game and a team sport. The QB an unusually large share of the outcome as does HC but its not the only factor. I think a QB has to win a SB at some point (which is why I rule out Marino) and they both have but I dont think winning more is the final measure.
I honestly cant say who is better. They are both unbelievable and I think equally great. I think both superior to everyone else.
I think you're diminishing Tom Brady's early Superbowl performances as if he was more riding the coattails than actually being part of the reason they were winning.
2001: 16/27 59%, 145 yards, 1 TD, 0 INT's (this one I'll give you)
2003: 37/50 66.7%, 354 yards, 3 TD's, 1 INT (this was the shootout against Carolina. It also ranks as the 6th best statistical performance in the Superbowl era by a QB).
2004: 23/33 69.7%, 236 yards, 2 TD's, 0 INT's.
The past ten years, Brady and Manning will have played in the same amount of Superbowls, and Brady has a chance to win the same amount as Manning in that 10 year stretch this year.
So by your own admission, they've been neck and neck for the past 10 years.
Why should Brady's early career success, and Manning's lack of it, count against Brady in any way? That's what I don't get.
You really should check the facts before posting (like you adamantly insisting on several thread over several days that the Giants D gave up the fewest points in 2016 a few weeks ago, by quoting an erroneous twitter source repeatedly). It takes less than 10 seconds verify it yourself. Really. Try it.
Johnny Unitas was drafted on the 9th round of a 30-round draft, # 109 over all. Far ahead of Tom Brady's #199 overall.
Johnny Unitas was drafted on the 9th round of a 30-round draft, # 109 over all. Far ahead of Tom Brady's #199 overall.
Typo ... #102 overall for Johnny U.
Yup
That said, I hesitate to compare across eras. The QB position has changed so dramatically since the early 80s that it's almost a different job. The caveat is especially important with Brady, whose one arguable flaw is a drop-off in performance when he gets punched in the mouth. So it's hard to say how he would have fared in an era when punching QBs in the mouth was an integral - and legal - part of the game.
This is exactly what I was thinking - the combination of HC & QB is the GOAT. I don't think Brady would have done as well elsewhere and, while I do think BB would still enjoy success, I wonder if it would have been as much with a different, or several, other QBs. BB's ability to game plan and develop players is amazing, as much as I hate to admit it. BUT, all of this still makes me wonder why either would feel it was necessary to cheat. Why would BB film the Jets defensive signals? I mean, it was the JETS for crying out loud. And why on earth would Brady feel the need to have balls deflated? I don't get it. I do absolutely believe he directed the ball guys to deflate the balls, but never believed for a moment that it ultimately affected his play one way or another - he was going to play well regardless. And even if this team of HC & QB are the GOAT, I think the cheating mars both careers, not necessarily in an asterisk kind of way. Both will still get into the HOF but a negative like cheating will follow them.
Consider:
U.S. News' list of worst NFL postseason misses by a kicker:
Mike Vanderjagt, Indianapolis Colts, 2006 AFC Divisional Round
What looked like an easy win for the Steelers devolved into mayhem late, with Indianapolis scoring 15 fourth-quarter points to pull to 21-18. Jerome Bettis then had the original Jeremy Hill moment, fumbling with Pittsburgh trying to run out the clock, and Nick Harper ran the ball back to the Colts 42 before being tripped up by Roethlisberger.
Peyton Manning worked Indianapolis into Pittsburgh territory, setting up a 46-yard attempt for Mike Vanderjagt, at that point the most accurate kicker in NFL history.
Vanderjagt missed wide right with 21 seconds left, and the Steelers ran out the clock to hold off the Colts.
Billy Cundiff, Baltimore Ravens, 2012 AFC Championship
This may be the closest relative to Blair Walsh on the heartbreaking missed kick family tree. With his Ravens down 23-20 to the Patriots and 15 seconds left, Cundiff set up for a 32-yard chip shot in cold weather at Gillette Stadium.
Cundiff pulled the kick way left, and New England took a knee and a trip to Lucas Oil Stadium for the Super Bowl, where Tom Brady and Co. lost to the Giants 21-17.
So we dock Peyton for not making the Superbowl that year and Brady keeps on being clutch...all based on whether a kicker makes a kick?
Then turn to a list of the best kicks in playoff history:
2001 AFC Divisional: New England Patriots 16, Oakland Raiders 13 (OT)
Adam Vinatieri's 23-yard field goal in the overtime snow won it for the Patriots in the final game at Foxboro Stadium. The kick sent New England to the AFC Championship Game, where they would beat Pittsburgh.
Super Bowl XXXVIII: New England Patriots 32, Carolina Panthers 29
New England's Adam Vinatieri added to his long postseason resume with a 41-yard field goal that gave the Patriots the lead with four seconds remaining in regulation. New England would win the Lombardi Trophy, their first of two consecutive and three in four seasons.
Super Bowl XXXVI: New England Patriots 20, St. Louis Rams 17
Adam Vinatieri's 48-yard field goal as time expired in Super Bowl XXXVI takes home the honor as the greatest postseason field goal of the past 10 years. Vinatieri's kick not only won Super Bowl XXXVI, but kicked off a New England dynasty that ruled the decade.
The point of all of the above is just to highlight how dependent a QB is on the team around him and how fine the line can be between clutch and not (and how unrelated to the QB it actually is sometimes). Peyton was robbed of the chance for a superbowl by his kicker. Brady got one based on a miss from the Ravens' kicker and won each of his first three in large part due to some of the most clutch kicks of all time.
Would some of you also say that Brady was somehow not the greatest QB of all time if he had lost all of those games solely because Vinatieri missed? That seems to be the only logical conclusion based on some of the comments above.
This year Dallas had a Last place Schedule...
But as Blogger said, they just keep doing it... Consistently, and as Bill2 said, do you doubt that they'll do it again in another year or two if things stay consistent to what they've been?
This is a machine that shows no sign of stopping.
My point is that in making the distinction between he and his peers and that level, I think looking at Superbowl wins is lazy. It's the same reason I won't argue Eli or Tom Bradshaw are better than Dan Marino. I don't believe they are, despite the Superbowl wins (and I'm an ardent Eli homer by all accounts). There's more that goes into achieving that result than just having the best QB.
Again, I go back to this. Put Peyton on the Pats teams of the past 15 years. Do you think there's a pretty fair shot they win at least 4 superbowls/appear in 7 (I do). Now put Brady on those Colts/Broncos teams, do you think he still wins 4 superbowls and appears in 7 (I don't). If you agree...you're tacitly acknowledging what I'm saying here...that there was more at play than just who was the better QB.
Just hearing coaches and defenses talk about playing his teams - they always said Peyton and not his team. He was just a force. It was 11 guys and a coaching staff against him.
I truly believe that Peyton Manning would have been successful on any team, in any circumstance, in any era. I think he would have turned that team into the most unstoppable offensive unit in the NFL, made them a perennial playoff team and won a Super Bowl or two.
If you put a young Peyton on this years Browns, this would be true in a meter of a year or two
I fully believe that.
My question on him has been that there clearly has been an impact on him at key moments and unable to deliver as well as he did in the regular season.i think its more about the whittling down of a season to 1 team or 1 Defnse that would inevitably be playing a such a level that could match him.
Is it just too much about 1 man in a team sport that made his teams vulnerable to being shut down if you could manage to outmatch Manning. Do his teams just become too much about him? That it might have led him to not be as successful as he could have been had he found himself paired with a Belichick?
I wondered if he could be the dominant single force player that could carry his team and be an unstoppable force that defenses and coaches had to game plan around.
However, Brady has clearly proven that he can do that. That he could be that guy and could lead teams and franchises in that and it wasn't just because of his head coach and organization.
Could Brady have been as successful in a different organization? With a different coach? Especially one with one with a tumultuous front office like the Jets that always made different changes to different whims.
I have a much easier time imagining Peyton doing this.
I do obviously believe that Brady would have found success and would have taken such teams to the playoffs and maybe have won a Super Bowl.
Big Butthurt Interactive never fails
Big Butthurt Interactive never fails
Don't know if that's directed at me or not. I've always said luck is a part of winning a Superbowl (in fact, that's perfectly in line with what I'm saying here....that the difference in Brady and Peyton's resumes in part reflects little more than that in the way of who was lucky enough to have/face a clutch kicker and who wasn't). That's why I try to account for that factor in trying to rank them.
Personally, it doesn't bother me to say that Giants benefited from luck nearly as much as it does when people say the defense carried Eli to a title (especially in regards to 2011).
However, I would like to see him playing in the NFL outside of the Patriots system as a comparison. That would be the true test of how good he really is, beyond an important component in a sum of parts that Bill has built.
I do believe he was the best of his era and better than Elway and Marino.
How many more are accurate allow to allow easier Yards after the catch?
No wind, no sun, no rain, no snow
10% more? X 8 games per year and a few playoff games?
2) How many years did Brady have two WR with as much talent as Harrison and Wayne? How many years with one great WR ( Moss ) vs two very very good ones?
Peyton had 4 coaches. The Pats won in four different systems, ways and strengths.
Peyton was one of the greats. Brady beat him almost 2x more than Peyton beat him.
I agree that the current case for Brady allows debate.
Oddly the Montana argument ignores that Walsh and SF won very well with Young. So Coach and System did not make Montana but the same did make Brady?
To me, here is the key: Brady is not finished. Perhaps not even close to finished. Do you really really doubt that Brady and Pats will not make it back in the next four years?
Note: they get Gronk back and add more in the offseason...like maybe even a good WR or a Vereen like pass catching RB
Lets have the conversation when he is.
It always has been it always will be.
Remember when the read option was all the rage? Once a couple of defenses set the blueprint for how to defend it, it essentially vanished because DC's around the league took note and used that same strategy.
Does anyone sit here and truly believe that after about 15 years now, what the Patriots are doing is just some "system" and still no one has figured it out? Think about that and how unlikely that really is.
I read an interesting article about them semi-recently. What they do offensively actually isn't that complicated. They take route concepts and they simply run those same routes and same plays out of all different formations.
In one formation, for example, maybe they'll have 2 WR split out wide with a WR in the slot.. they'll have the flanker run a deep post and the SE run a square-in and the slot guy will run a crossing route. Out of the backfield, they'll have the RB run a flat.
Then, using that same personnel grouping, maybe they use a bunch formation or maybe they pull the RB out of the backfield and have him line up in the other slot. All 4 guys are still running the same route they just ran on the previous play but now some of them are running them from different places.
Teams have a difficult time defending them because it can be difficult to really pick up on formation-based tendencies. But this isn't the only reason why they're so difficult to stop. Because if it was, every team would be trying to use these same concepts. And I'm sure some do to a degree.
That said. This doesn't work the same way if you replace Brady with a run of the mill QB. A historic run like this doesn't happen because of just one coach or just one player. This is Bill and Tom together. Forming the greatest QB/HC duo in NFL history.
After that Brady. Then Peyton.
If I had my choice of one QB to start a team I'd go with young Rodgers over anybody. Is that how you judge best? Or is it more about Super Bowls in a team game? I wouldn't pick the best at any other position this way but with QB it goes to the championships which is why Montana and Bradshaw get mentioned too much in this conversation.
Quote:
starting with the Bledsoe injury and the tuck rule. To his credit, he maximized his opportunity. Other candidates for "right place, right time": Big Ben, Russell Wilson, and now, Dak Prescott.
By that odd definition, every NFL player is a case of right place, right time.
How do you mean? was Andre Williams in the right place at the right time? what if he got drafted by the Cowboys and he ran behind that line his entire career? Would he be a 3-time Pro Bowler? Wouldn't you consider that to be "right place, right time" vs being unfortunate enough to get drafted by the Giants. Or what if Nassib was Romo's backup instead of playing behind NFL's Iron Man? Would Nassib be the guy everybody is talking about instead of Dak?
Quote:
In comment 13336460 MookGiants said:
Quote:
how an argument could be made against him being the best of all time.
I always found the well he's not undefeated in Super Bowls like Montana is.
So Montana lost more before getting to the actual Super Bowl than Brady has and we're supposed to use that against Brady?
4-2 in Super Bowls is better than 4-0. Yet people act like 4-0 is better than 4-2
Well it was tougher to get to the SB for an old school NFC QB, while it was harder to win it outright for modern QBs of either conference. The 1984 season says it all: win grind it out games against Giants & Bears then slays the Marino led Dolphins after his historic season.
I do think that 49er fans themselves would be the first to question Montana's greatness if he lost twice to a team in the Super Bowl that wasn't a better all around team. Cincinnati was essentially the best AFC opponent to the Niners and kept it tight in both games, and didn't win either.
When the Giants beat the Niners in '85, '86, '90, they were on the same level or better. Every year had a more or less predestined champion.
It's one of those things that can be argued either way. Brady had better QB competition in his conference, but overall team and HC, he had a nice edge.
When the Ravens and Steelers brought a complete package, they created problems for Brady.
Brady for most of his career had one of the 3-4 best QB's of all time in his conference, so spare me how much harder it was to get to the Super Bowl in the 80's. It wasn't. It's a lot harder to keep a team together and be a dynasty now than it was in the 80's
The flip side is that Joe Montana lost championship games to Theismann, McMahon, Hostetler, and divisional games to Simms and Wade Wilson.
Back then QB meant a helluva lot less than it does now in a head to head showdown. It meant a lot for sustained excellence, which is why the Niners were the team of the '80s.
Maybe if Marino or Elway played on a similarly stacked NFC team your argument could hold muster.
As it stands, Brady's HC & defenses whipped Peyton Manning more often than not....Brady was essentially an old school NFC QB in that sense going up against the Colts.
The few years a great defense existed in the AFC, Brady was no better than 50/50. Ravens '09, Jets '10....Ravens '12, Ravens '14 almost a loss.
Last year's AFC Championship game was a little taste of Joe Montana's career.
Sorry.
KC/Houston '93 - let's see Brady do that.